Schöpffer's List– German scientists question Copernicanism; Part 18a

      This continues from Part 17, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

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

[2016-10-23: See added note at bottom referencing article by C.A.T. Selle]
     In this next sub-series of posts, I want to go beyond my previous post on the German scientist of the mid-1800s who almost single-handedly confronted the scientific community against Copernicanism – Dr. Carl Schöpffer.  But what is most striking is that he exposed a list of famous scientists who at least questioned Copernicanism.  And like the dubious nature of the "science" of Copernicanism, so too this list is embarrassing for today's historians of science.  Some may question this list since it only comes from one man, but it was "borrowed" by another writer of the 1800s, August Tischner, who "borrowed" and publicized it in English in his 1885 book – The Fixed Idea of Astronomical Theory, (pages 33-35).  Curiously, Tischner did not credit Schöpffer for his list of scientists.  — Later, in 1900, Schöpffer's lecture was directly translated into English and published under the title The Earth Stands Fast.  In this same book, Tischner is quoted by Frank Allaben as if Tischner were original in producing "Schöpffer's List" (Part XVI, pages 59-60), but again, it was clearly Schöpffer's List, not Tischner's.
      As I translated Schöpffer's full account and compared it with Tischner's abbreviated "borrowing", I marveled at Schöpffer's experience.  Schöpffer's narrative reminds me of John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, for he was truly a pilgrim in his native Germany.
      Again, as I read this account of "Schöpffer's List", I recalled somewhere in my youth, perhaps as Junior or Senior in High School, hearing of it, and as I was walking home from a Sunday morning worship service, I thought

"Why isn't this list published more?"

Now I have that honor – the honor of publishing "Schöpffer's List" to the world again... not that it has not been available, but that it has been hidden because "popular science" doesn't want the general public to know about it.

Translation by BackToLuther from Die Widersprüche in der Astronomie, pgs 1-9; 

Highlighting, hyperlinks, text in brackets [ ] are mine.

To my justification.

In previous years as a teacher, when I connected my pupils sensually with the orbit of the earth around the sun, it struck me each time that the daily rotation cannot be combined with the annual circulation.  I did not know then that Copernicus had already made this observation and it weighed so heavily on him that he therefore postponed the publication of his book up to the final passing of his life and without the constant urging of his friends unknown to astronomy, certainly would not have given it for publication.  With this fact unknown, I was content  that surely astronomers would understand the matter better than I, and continued to lecture  without concern.   Actually almost all lessons would have to stop if the teacher himself had to check.  Who would then want to teach history?  We do not even know from personal experience the history of our time, let alone the past centuries and millennia.  We have to accept on faith what the so-called historians tell us before and also these — we can only believe.  Even if we consider the traditional news carefully when trying to examine the opposing ones, it is all only based on the individual faith in the credibility of any reporter or any source.

If even the researcher can only basically believe, all the more the teacher has not the time and the means available for research.  And thus I also believed in the Copernican system until I wrote my [page 2] Lehrbuch of Physik für das weibliche Geschlecht [Physics textbook for women, especially for teachers and students of higher girls’ schools].  It was really my intention to write this work comprehensibly and clear, but while working on the Copernican system, so many contradictions were yet to be met, that I deleted the whole paragraph again.  I let the matter rest.

As it so happened, early in the year of 1853, a man who was more than a dilettante in astronomy, Dr. Menzzer from Halberstadt next to Quedlinburg, came there to repeat the Foucault pendulum proof of the earth's rotation.  In an introductory lecture, he showed that they had yet had no proof of the Copernican hypothesis, that previous proofs could rather be accepted as so many contradictory evidences upon closer examination; only the Foucault pendulum proof demonstrates obviously and irrefutably the rotation of the earth. The pendulum was tied, the thread burned, the oscillations began and the pendulum deviated off to the left, instead of right.  It was hastily brought back to rest.  New burning off of the thread.  This time the deviation was the desired one, and we were invited on the following morning again to appear at 8 pm in the church to convince us that the divergence agreed with the theory.  The following morning, however, revealed that the pendulum had in the night changed its mind, and from the deviation to the right had reversed to the left again.

Alexander von Humboldt
"no evidence"

It seemed to me this new evidence was not yet quite right.  My faith in the Copernican doctrine had but become unstable by the lecture of Dr. Menzzer, and I decided to travel to Berlin to gain insight.  Once again I saw the pendulum experiment, and curiously it turned with a deviation to the left; so I proceeded to Alexander von Humboldt [† 1859], who was always the first refuge of those seeking instruction, and thereby was so complacent that he dismissed no one, that he even answered every letter conscientiously.  He received me very kindly and [page 3] said the memorable words: “I have also known this long ago that we do not have any evidence for the Copernican system; but the first attack on it, I would never dare.  Do not poke into this hornet's nest; you will incur only the scorn of the unthinking crowd.  If an astronomer with a name once rises against the current view, so I will also share my observations, but to act first against views that have become dear to the world, I do not feel the courage.”  But I was encouraged by those words, because I realized from them that the famous scholar also had his doubts.

... (to be continued)

===============================
Schöpffer sure got my attention as he published one of the greatest names in science history, 10 years after Humboldt's death.  I shall remember Humboldt, not for his other major scientific works, not that he advised President Thomas Jefferson, but that he at least questioned Copernicanism.
      This list is just getting started as I continue the "List" in Part 18b...

[2016-10-23: I have discovered that the old Missouri publication Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt from 1870 published a 2-part article by the Pastor C.A.T. Selle highlighting Schöpffer's works.  See >> here << for extracted text document and further links to resources.]

Science Historians; Math– Loss of Certainty; Copernicanism Part 17

[2026-06-12: updated links; 2025-04-06: updated and added link; 2017-06-14: added note at bottom]
      This continues from Part 16c, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

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

      The history of science from the "early modern period" (Copernicus to Newton) up to our modern period is a broad one indeed.  As I have read through what must seem dozens of authors, I wanted to summarize them, but have despaired of doing so.  The reading can be interesting and it can be saddening.  I will present two examples of the latter:

Prof. Peter Barker

(1)  Prof. Peter Barker of the University of Oklahoma presents himself not only as an authority on the history of science, but also on... Lutheranism.  But is this really so?  Here is his comment regarding the Lutheran Confessions in his essay "The Role of Religion in the Lutheran Response to Copernicus" among the essays in the book Rethinking the Scientific Revolution edited by Margaret J. Osler (page 68) [2026-06-12: updated links]:

The unfortunately named Formula of Concord was an attempt to heal the breach between strict Lutherans and less-strict Phillippists and others sympathetic to Calvinism. Issued on June 25, 1580 (the fiftieth anniversary of the Augsburg confession), it was accepted by Saxony, Württemberg, and Baden, ... The employment of the formula thus deepened the divisions it was intended to heal, by obliging people like ... Kepler, to choose between a new orthodox Lutheranism that opposed Calvinism, and the older Phillipist version that tolerated it. Kepler's response was to follow a career that avoided the Formula.

Barker claims to be a judge over the Lutheran Confessions, essentially saying the naming of "Formula of Concord" was deceptive.  To him, it is not important to hold to the teaching of the Bible, especially not for Johannes Kepler.  Rather the maintenance of unity or "concord" should not depend on what doctrine is taught.  Barker discusses Luther, Melanchthon and other Lutheran theologians, but he has already disqualified himself from true theological history.  It is not surprising that he, like J. R. Christianson, discounts the Table Talks of Luther against Copernicanism (page 64).  Even sadder than Prof. Barker are the modern Lutheran theologians who agree with him concerning the Formula of Concord!

Prof. Mark Noll

(2) Prof. Mark A. Noll, Another example of the sadness comes from Noll, a "Reformed evangelical Christian" now teaching at the Roman Catholic Notre Dame University.  Noll is particularly troublesome in his history of B. B. Warfield regarding evolutionism and inerrancy.  In an article on Andrew Dickson White on the BioLogos website, in Part 3 he makes the following statement:

B.B. Warfield

“Perhaps even more notable as someone who promoted major aspects of Darwin’s science in the United States was a theologian from Princeton Seminary, Benjamin B. Warfield, who was alive and active when White published his big book. Warfield’s support for evolution is especially noteworthy since Warfield was, in his day, the nation’s strongest supporter for the theological concept of biblical inerrancy, the belief that the Bible makes no mistakes whatever. Warfield wrote carefully about evolution and with several qualifications, but he also articulated his conviction on many occasions that natural selection did not in principle contradict historic Christian faith nor did it undermine a very high conception of the Christian Scriptures.”

Part of what is troubling in Noll's sweeping statement of "Warfield's support for evolution" is that Noll himself admits that "Warfield wrote carefully about evolution and with several qualifications".  What Noll omits here is what he stated earlier in his portrait of Warfield in Elwell's Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, pages 32-33 [2025-04-06: updated and added link]:

“Warfield’s opposition to naturalistic forms of evolution never wavered. On several occasions he wrote on Darwin and, in so doing, took pains to show that if Darwinism meant random, purposeless change, then it must be opposed by every Christian.”

It would seem that these statements would not fit well with the BioLogos theme!  In the end though, Warfield did seem to exhibit weakness in defending against evolution as it is generally understood today.  And how modern theology will highlight this weakness!
      But Prof. Noll is incorrect about Warfield being "the nation’s strongest supporter for ... biblical inerrancy" for even Noll has heard of Franz Pieper whom he purposely ignores as the great Lutheran teacher of the Twentieth Century.  I believe it was Warfield who "called upon" Dr. Pieper to write his essay "Luther's Doctrine of Inspiration" for his periodical The Presbyterian and Reformed Review in 1893.   So Prof. Noll misinforms us to a degree about Warfield.  And he apparently follows Warfield's weakness on inerrancy and prefers to infer that Warfield really meant to teach the Scriptures are in error regarding the creation account. — It is quite easy for Prof. Noll to ignore Pieper, especially since today's LC-MS largely ignores (or repudiates)... Franz Pieper.  But I have news for both Noll and today's LC-MS — Franz Pieper, the Twentieth Century Luther!  If anyone wants to know the true account of Martin Luther on the Inspiration and Inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, they should read what Warfield printed of Franz Pieper's essay -->> HERE.
      With "evangelicals" such as Prof. Mark Noll, is it any wonder that the bookstores today have complete sections on the history of science, typified by popular authors like Shawn Otto who says in his book The War on Science (pages 48-49):

“Is it better to base our knowledge on reading an old book, or on observations of nature before our very eyes? ... If it is inaccurate, can we take any of it seriously?”

Indeed, Mr. Otto would find agreement in the second question from... Luther, Walther and Pieper!  It is an excellent question, albeit with two entirely different responses.

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

      To finish this post, I would reprint a portion of the Preface to Morris Kline's book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty:

     This book treats the fundamental changes that man has been forced to make in his understanding of the nature and role of mathematics. We know today that mathematics does not possess the qualities that in the past earned for it universal respect and admiration. Mathematics was regarded as the acme of exact reasoning, a body of truths in itself, and the truth about the design of nature. How man came to the realization that these values are false and just what our present understanding is constitute the major themes. ...
     Many mathematicians would perhaps prefer to limit the disclosure of the present status of mathematics to members of the family. To air these troubles in public may appear to be in bad taste, as bad as airing one’s marital difficulties. But intellectually oriented people must be fully aware of the powers of the tools at their disposal. Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies and even to destruction.

Quite a refreshing judgment of not only modern mathematics, but perhaps much of today's "science".
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In the next Part 18a I want to publicize Carl Schöpffer's list of famous German scientists in the mid-1800s who at least questioned Copernicanism...

[2017-06-14: see this later post confirming correspondence between Warfield and Pieper]

LC-MS 2016: back door on Inspiration, Infallibility of Holy Scripture; Part 16c

      This continues from Part 16b, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

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

      This an appendix to the previous Part 16b, where the old Missouri Synod defended the divinity of Holy Scripture and against Copernicanism.
      In the LC-MS today, there is the document from 1973 called A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles.  Although it is thought by some to be a full return to the heritage of the old (German) Missouri Synod's teaching, yet it opened a "back door" with the sentence (under heading "The Infallibility of Scripture"):

"We recognize that there are apparent contradictions or discrepancies and problems which arise because of uncertainty over the original text."

The words "contradictions", "discrepancies", "problems", and "uncertainty" are all used in this sentence relating to our Holy Bible.  (How is this different than the phrase "plastic text" used by Prof. Kloha?)  Pastor Martin Noland of the LC-MS writes in the latest issue of Christian News (May 9, 2016, page 3, col. 1) the following regarding this sentence:

"The second part of ... the sentence refers to the problems of biblical text criticism, so LC-MS pastors, theologians, and scholars are free to work on such problems and propose various answers where there is 'uncertainty over the original text' due to variant readings."

It would seem that "All Theology is a Problem" in today's LC-MS.  Their teachers could teach me all day long about the Inspiration or Divinity of Holy Scripture, but all the while I would be questioning their sincerity as they use their "freedom to work on such problems and propose various answers where there is 'uncertainty over the original text' due to variant readings."  Noland then goes on to state that "my professors at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne in 1979 to 1986 affirmed and personally practiced textual criticism of the Bible".  He apparently includes also Prof. Robert Preus among these.  How is it that the words used in this 1973 statement, "contradictions, discrepancies, problems, and uncertainty", are to be reconciled to Noland's later statement "that the most significant variant readings do not affect the doctrines of Scripture"?  If they "do not affect the doctrines of Scripture", then how can there be "contradictions, discrepancies, problems, and uncertainty"?
      For antidotes to this ambiguous and confusing wording of today's LC-MS, I suggest two readings:

(1) Franz Pieper's discussion on "variant readings" here, where he concludes:

"So we know a priori, before any investigation, from the promise and the testimony of Christ, that in the Scriptures now at the disposal of the Church we have a reliable text, or, in other words, the authentic doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, that is, of God, in spite of the variae lectiones in the copies.
     b. We reach the same result also a posteriori, on the basis of scientific investigation. Human scientific investigation establishes the fact that not a single Christian doctrine has been rendered doubtful in any point by the 'legion' of variant readings."

(2)  C.F.W. Walther concluded his charge against Germany's "scientific theologians" in the year before his death in the "Foreword" to the 1886 issue of Lehre und Wehre journal  (Lehre and Wehre, vol. 32, 1886, p. 76 f.) [Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pg 306]:

"Sup­pose that Luther actually regarded the Bible as a book containing all manner of error, out of which only the scholars could lift the kernel of divine truth, that position would rob the Bible Christians only of Luther. But it is a most horrible thing that the theologians of the Modernist faith, including the Modernist Lutherans (without exception, it would seem), declare it to be a fact no longer debatable that the Scriptures contain, besides the `good thoughts' of their authors, also `hay, straw, and stubble,' which `the fire consumes.' That stand robs the Bible Christians not only of a man whom they had heretofore regarded as a faithful witness of the truth, but it robs the Bible Chris­tians of the Bible itself, a lamp to their feet and a light on their path forever, their rod and their staff in the dark valley of affliction, in short, of God's Word, their consolation in the terrors of sin, their hope in the darkness of their last hour! ... We must say of this so-called 'divine-human nature of Scripture,' as the term is understood by modern theologians: Beware, beware, I say, of this 'divine-human' Scripture. It is a devil's mask, for at last it manufactures such a Bible according to which I certainly would not care to be a Bible Christian; namely, that henceforth the Bible should be no more than any good book, a book which I would have to read with constant scrutiny in order not to be led into error. For if I believe that the Bible also contains errors, it is to me no longer a touchstone, but itself stands in need of one. In a word, it is unspeakable what the devil seeks with this 'divine­-human' Scripture." (bolding and highlighting are mine)

Later in August of 1886, the Synodical Conference would cement its teaching on the Divinity of Holy Scripture in its doctrinal proceedings, and also call the teaching of Copernicanism... poison.
      We see that in 1973, the LC-MS did not fully return to its heritage and is now adrift in its own teachings... and deceitfully confusing its own people of the Divinity of Holy Scripture... and on Copernicanism. —  In the next Part 17, I touch on what various historians have said about science... and religion.

Missouri Synod 1878- Der Lutheraner: Copernicanism & Inspiration; Part 16b

[2017-11-18: added photo of Pastor J.F. Köstering]
      This continues from Part 16a, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

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

     From the previous essay from 1898, I move back in time 20 years, when Walther was still the editor of the Der Lutheraner magazine.  Pastor Pasche gave another quote in one of his books from the old (German) Missouri Synod, this one from a Pastor Köstering who in his defense of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, also defended against Copernicanism.  Translating this was a labor of love for me as it brought back the teaching from my confirmation class.  I can just imagine how editor Walther loved printing this essay!

Translation by BackToLuther from Der Lutheraner, July 1, 1878 (vol. 34, no. 13), pgs 99-100; 

Highlighting, hyperlinks, text in brackets [ ] are mine.

(Sent in by Pastor Köstering.)

Something over the Divinity of the Holy Scriptures.

The divinity of the Scriptures is the first fundamental truth of the Christian religion and the only reason for our faith, with which it either stands and falls. We are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (whom these have laid in their writings), of which Jesus Christ is the cornerstone.  If this basis is divine, then it is certainly immovable, and our faith with Him; were He but only a human, it would be awkward for our faith.  It is therefore a highly important thing that our heart is persuaded of the divinity of the Holy Scriptures thoroughly and is encouraged in this conviction always anew again and is fastened.

In a time like the present, the need is doubly important.  Our time is characterized not only by the most varied, unscrupulous falsification of the Word; but it also works with a vengeance because the basis of the Christian religion (that the Bible is a divine book) convert tear itself.  It is true of their action: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” [Psalm 11:3]  Are there not thousands, yes, millions, who are baptized in the Triune God, and no more hold the Holy Scriptures [page 99, column 2] as God's Word, but a fairy tale and myth book, and explain it so?  But not only these shake the ground of the Christian religion.  How many are not now under those which want not to be counted among the mockers, but to those who believe, yes, as true believers want to be counted, who are so infected and poisoned by the false enlightenment of our time, that they no longer even believe much of what is clearly written in the Holy Bible book, but now this, now that exclude the Scriptures, and in this and those parts rather follow their blind reason, or their false hearts, or the generally godless principles of the enlightened endless world?  Are there not many so-called Christians who are ashamed of confessing particularly those remarks of the Holy Spirit in Scripture that are so annoying and offensive to the unbelieving, the proud of wisdom, the fanatical, and the creature idolizing race of our time? And what is the most saddening in this matter: that the so-called "scientific theologians" stand in this at the top.  They certainly do not say: The Bible is a book of fables; no, they say: God's Word is in the Bible.  Now that sounds very Christian, and one could hold the statement as quite innocuous, if one did not know that they want just so to hide their mischief.  They do not want to confess with all true Christians: The Bible is God's Word, they deny a real divine inspiration of the Holy Scripture, and see them as merely higher illumination which the sacred writers should have enjoyed.  They deny that everything contained in the canonical books is God's Word, and make a distinction between the divine and the human in Scripture.  They deny the statement: The Bible is the Word immediately spoken of the Holy Spirit, and thus they strike at the foundation, so far as it is up to them.  For if the whole Bible is not God's Word, and not every syllable and every word immediately spoken by the Holy Spirit, but the Scripture is jumbled between the divine and human: who will then tell us infallibly, and who can then unfailingly know which is divine and which is human in the Bible?  Truly then we sit with our faith in the sand!

It is admitted that in our days, the number of those who still profess with joy “The Bible is God's Word” has become very small.   Among the "scientific theologians" one is  limited whoever still clings in childlike faith to this precious truth.  Not long ago, the “Erlanger Zeitschrift” [or Erlanger Journal] claimed with a full mouth that: “The old church doctrine of inspiration will at least in Germany be represented by no one any more.”  Frankly, we think this claim as a Goliath bravado because we know for certain that there are still warm pious learned men also in Germany who say: the Bible is God's Word, from the heart and joyfully profess to believe.  But of course, they are few, and they are so despised that no one takes notice of them any more.

That the Bible with all its content is truly God's Word, we but have three main evidences arising from itself, namely: 1. their divine origin; 2. their divine content, and 3. their divine power and effect. We will now speak only something of the first item and show what we mean when we say that the Bible is of divine origin, or, it is [page 99, column 3] inspired or given directly from God. On this point we set up the following statement:

The inspiration (or immediate intuition) of the Scriptures is that action of God, that He — the sole author of the Scriptures — selected by Himself certain individuals as his tools in constituting the biblical books driven of the Holy Spirit to write vigorously things that should write, and the words with which they should print the items, and the way, the order and the connection in which they should record the sacred truths, given immediately to mind, and in the pen; so that they have remained proven by the immediate and powerful governance of the Holy Spirit preserved especially against errors in their work, and we also by their writings (that is, all canonical books).  And in them every saying, every word, every syllable and every tittle we are as a sacred obligation to adopt as very reliable and infallible divine truth.

Before we analyze this sentence somewhat in order to make the divine inspiration of the Scriptures more understandable, let us first briefly indicate how not to think them.  One may namely 1. not confuse divine inspiration with mere divine illumination (Erleuchtung), and first explain it by the latter.  It is certainly true that the holy men of God, whom God has used as tools for the finishing of the biblical books, have been highly enlightened and highly favored men; but only a mere enlightenment does not protect oneself from error.  Had they therefore written the Bible only as highly enlightened men as the "scientific theologians" of our time would have us believe, then though it would be the best book in the world, nevertheless however it would be only a human book which would have to be read with caution.  But it is not so with the Bible, thank God! — One must  2. not think of divine inspiration even as ecstasy (Entzückung), because the sacred writers would have been offset by a suddenly poignant divine power from the natural into a supernatural state.  Because in this state of the ecstatic they would not really know what was happening.  Paul did not know if he was in the body, or out of the body; Peter (at Joppa) [Acts 11:5] also did not know how it happens; the apostles on Tabor know not what they say.  But it was not like that with the sacred writers.  They have completely been aware of that what they have written, and could think about it. — Finally  3. one must not imagine divine inspiration as a divine appearance, that God had spoken face to face with the sacred writers and dictated to them the words to write.  Because in this way would actually be found no inspiration and no inner divine action in the sacred scribes, that yet according the testimony of Scripture itself has found, 1 Tim. 3:16.  And how easy would occur a self-deception in this way, that the holy men for a devil’s appearance as an angel of light — would have thought of as a divine appearance instead!

The inspiration or immediate inspiration of Scripture summarizes the following items in it:

1. The holy men of God have been driven most strongly by the Holy Spirit to write the Biblical books. Peter testifies this when he says:  "The holy men of God spake [page 100, column 1] — and thus also written —. as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." [2 Peter 1:21]  This moving was so powerful that they could not withstand it.  Not as if they had been compelled by the moving of the Holy Spirit to write, but that they were rendered willingly, merrily and cheerfully.   As it once was with the apostles: "For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." [Acts 4:20]; so it was said by the holy writers: We do not leave it that we should not write what the Holy Ghost has given to us.  The prophet Jeremias felt such an holy urge, so he also writes: "Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay." [Jeremiah 20:9]  And from the Apostle Paul we read: “Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ."

2. The divine inspiration of the Scriptures also comprehends that the holy men have enjoyed in constituting the biblical books an immediate enlightenment, an extraordinary governing and a powerful help of God, whereby they were preserved from error.  When a prophet or an evangelist, or an apostle had written a biblical book, that did not need afterward to be  corrected and improved; it was without any errors and quite perfect in content, form and expression.  This was caused by the Holy Spirit, who is a Spirit of truth, had immediately governed them in writing that they could not be in error. For this reason, can even Paul say so confidently "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." [Gal. 1:8]  So the Apostle dearly testifies that he and his fellow Apostles had preached and written nothing other than what had been given to them by the Holy Spirit immediately.  Therefore one must be cursed which brings a different doctrine; then the Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself.

3. The inspiration or direct divine inspiration of the Scriptures also grasps in itself, that the Holy Spirit gave the holy men of God the things that they should write, and the words with which they should express the things, actually and immediately in the mind and in the pen.  For as Paul testifies that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" [2 Tim. 3:16], both things and words but belong to Scripture, it follows incontrovertibly that both have been directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.  This can also be proven with clear sayings of Scripture.  David says: "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me, His word was on my tongue." [2 Sam. 23:2] "My tongue is the pen of a ready writer". [Ps. 45:1] To Jeremiah the prophet God says: "Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth." [Jer. 1:9]  And our Saviour says to his apostles: "Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."  In these words He promises them not only the "what", or the things that [page 100, column 2] should speak and write, but also the "how", or the words and expressions, with which they should express and write down the divine truths given them by the Holy Spirit.  Therefore then also Paul writes to confirm the truly arrived fulfillment of Christ's promise: "We have received ... the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God; which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." [1 Cor. 2:12-13]

  4. The immediate inspiration of Scripture understands finally in itself, that the Holy Spirit has charted for the holy men of God the way, the order and connection, in short, the form in which they should recite the divine things.  This is to be taken from the previously proven fact, and especially from what Christ also promises to give his disciples "how they should speak and write"; which includes then the style, the connection, the relationship, in short, the whole form in itself.

What we have now said generally of the immediate divine inspiration of Holy Scripture, is also valid in particular of every canonical book, of every section, of every saying, of every word, of every syllable, and of every tittle in the same.  Not only the important, but also the less important and seemingly unimportant — everything, everything is given by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit: thing, word, expression, speech and form.  Not only is the Bible's teachings, but also its stories, not just its chronology, but also what it says of the world of stars — everything is of the Holy Spirit by direct inspiration, and therefore also very reliable, infallible divine truth.  It is just as certain divine truth that Balaam’s ass spake with a man's voice as that God confused the language of Babel; Likewise, it is just as divinely certain that the sun moves continuously in the sky around our earth, as certain it is that God has established the earth firmly.  Because such things are spoken and written with words that the Holy Spirit teaches the holy men of God, i.e. the Holy Spirit has given them immediately to mind, and in the pen [Feder, or feather or pen].  But the Holy Spirit cannot speak deceitfully, that is, He cannot speak so that we would be led by His speech to a false notion of a thing.  When He says, for example: "As the sun and the moon stood still,"  He does not mean: the Earth stood still, because then his speech would tempt us into quite a wrong image of the behaviour of the celestial bodies.  No, as the Holy Spirit speaks, He means it, and as He said, so it is; because the Word of the Lord is true.

Dear, precious  reader!  With this faith of our fathers, let us remain steadfast, then our faith has a solid foundation and our heart a certain consolation. — Everything however, which so far the newer scientific theology brought out as clarification of their alleged treasure, has only served to cause the foundation of our faith to waver where possible and to diminish and rob us the certain comfort.  Therefore we must refuse it in this regard.

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

      Indeed, this essay is one of the precursors to what the Synodical Conference would address in its convention of 1886.  Pastor Köstering was a very good student of... C.F.W. Walther!  It was Walther who led the charge against the horrible rationalism and "scientific theology" of Germany, a theology that would make the Holy Scriptures both divine and human in their origin.

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

      I was going to leave this topic for another, except that I just read a statement by Pastor Martin Noland of the LC-MS in the most recent Christian News that touches on what the LC-MS teaches today on the Holy Scriptures.  In the next Part 16c, I contrast this with what the old (German) Missouri taught as represented by the above Der Lutheraner essay.

Missouri Synod 1898: Copernican science questioned; Part 16a

      This continues from Part 15, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

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

      My study continually went back and forth, between science and theology, between earlier times and more recent times.  Now I go back to the old (German) Missouri Synod in the 19th century and 2 more examples of its teachings from those who were not C.F.W. Walther or J.C.W. Lindemann.  Both of these examples were pointed out by Pastor F. E. Pasche in his books to show his Missouri Synod what its teaching had been and what it must continually be.
      In 1898, well after Walther's passing in 1887, the editors of the theological journal Lehre und Wehre, Franz Pieper and George Stoeckhardt, included a report delivered at one of the synod's conferences.  The report was authored by "W.M", a person I have not been able to identify.  This essay is similar to the pamphlet by J.C.W. Lindemann in that it deals with the scientists who continually want to make Copernicanism an objective truth, even when the science cannot prove it.  It contains several sections that quote from British scientists.

Translation by BackToLuther from Lehre und Wehre vol. 44, Nov. 1898, pgs 328-334; 

Highlighting, hyperlinks, text in brackets [ ] are mine.

"Proof that the recent research in the field of science has in no case overturned articles of faith, but confirmed them in each case."

(A conference paper by W. M. Sent by resolution.)

(Continuation.)

2. The relationship of the individual heavenly bodies to each other.

This section concerns the Copernican system.  Is this system proved to be the truth?  Almost all the world accepts this today and does not know what to do with the people who are too "narrow-minded" or "stubborn" in order to also accept it.

But now we have with Copernicanism just another example of this kind of formation of scientific dogmas. Only the [page 329] theory is asserted first and afterwards they search for the proofs of it. Copernicus himself had also regarded his system only as a theory, which also Chambers's Encyclopædia admits. The advocates of the Copernican idea are mostly imitators.  How many even among those who write the popular manuals on astronomy, have probably investigated the matter thoroughly?   Who is probably among the laity who would be a Copernican of conviction due to an independent examination?

But let us here examine the Copernican system in some detail.  It is not difficult for the unprejudiced person to realize how weak the proofs for it are appointed.

According to the theory, the earth should rotate about its axis.  Is this really proven by the evidence, so that any other assumption would absolutely have to be rejected?  Let us hear what it says, a professor of astronomy. (Elements of Astronomy by Robert Stawell Ball, L. L. D., F. R. S., Andrews Professor of Astronomy in the University of Dublin, Royal Astronomer of Ireland. D. Appleton & Co., N. Y., 1880). He writes literally: “The apparent diurnal motion of the heavens might be, no doubt, explained by the hypothesis that the celestial bodies were all attached to the interior surface of a colossal globe, of which the earth was the centre, and that this globe revolved around one of its diameters once in every sidereal day. There is, however, another method of explaining the diurnal motion which demands our careful attention. The earth itself is, as we have seen, an isolate body in the universe, and is attached to no other body. What is there then to prevent the earth being actually in motion? . . .

“We may suppose that the celestial sphere is revolving around the earth from east to west, while the earth is at rest; or we may suppose that the celestial sphere is at rest, and that the earth is revolving from west to east, and thus produces the apparent motion. Which of these two solutions are we to adopt? We shall see hereafter that many of the celestial bodies are vastly larger than the earth, that they are situated at very great distances from the earth, and that some of these distances are very much greater than others. It therefore seems much more reasonable to suppose that the earth, which is a comparatively small body, should be in a condition of rotation rather than that the vast fabric of the universe should all be moving round the earth once every day. Astronomers, therefore, now universally admit that the true explanation of the apparent diurnal motion of the heavens is to be found in the fact that the earth revolves on its axis once every sidereal day from west to east. “A remarkable confirmation of this conclusion is presented by the shape of the earth.” (pgs. 74–76.) [page 330]

So far our authority, the professor of Astronomy at the University of Dublin and Royal Astronomer of Ireland.  We cannot help but ask: Is that all you can muster for the theory?  So there declared openly by a luminary of this "queen of the sciences" that one can well explain the movements of the heavenly bodies quite in one way or the other. The Astronomy decides for the rotation of the Earth, because – indeed, because this assumption is rather credible given the long distances of the celestial bodies and their far surpassing size to the "little" Earth.  Now, we later come to speak to these "sizes" and distances. They are the wide coat with which today's astronomy wraps everything in affectionate love and covers what does not pass the light of examination.  And we will see well enough what to think. The fact that the discovered flattening of the Earth's poles was a "strange" confirmation of the rotation of the earth, however, is quite correct, as far as the "strange" is concerned.  Namely, it is very strange that the earth should be flattened as a result of its rotation at the poles – which by the way is still only better to be proved – while in other celestial bodies (e.g. the sun), which also rotate, it is not the case. (The most careful observations have not afforded reliable indications of any ellipticity in the figure of the sun." The same author, l. c, p. 185.)

Our informant conceals the arguments that are otherwise probably still needed and which are based on the experiments with [Foucault] pendulums etc. Why?

We now move from the contemplation of the daily rotation of the earth to the annual revolution, to see whether the proofs for Copernicanism are better.  I will again let astronomer Ball speak for himself.  He writes ibid, p 189: "It is equally easy to explain the apparent movements of the sun by the hypothesis that the sun is at rest in the focus, and that the earth moves around the sun in an ellipse, or by the hypothesis that the earth is at rest in the focus and that the sun moves round the earth in an ellipse. It is indeed easy to see that on either supposition the law of the description of equal areas in equal times will be fulfilled. To decide which of these two hypotheses we shall accept we must introduce other considerations."  So one can explain the annual movements of the heavenly bodies equally well according to both assumptions. Where is the exclusive right of Copernicanism?

But perhaps our astronomer feels that he requires serious reasons to forces us to let them leave Copernicanism under two theories. These are the “other considerations” that should decide which of the two hypotheses we must assume: 1. The sun is so powerful because it is larger than the earth, therefore it is natural that the earth  around the sun goes rather than vice versa.  2. The [page 331] other planets, Venus, Mercury etc., are proven to revolve around the sun; this analogy suggests that the earth does equally the same.  3. “The beautiful phenomenon, known as the aberration of light” which “would be wholly inconsistent with the hypothesis that the sun revolves around the earth.”  4. “The theory of universal gravitation affords so satisfactory an explanation of many most remarkable phenomena connected with the motions of the heavenly bodies, that not a doubt can remain of its truth in the mind of any person capable of understanding the subject. Yet the theory of universal gravitation is indissolubly connected with and identified with the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.”

This is also again everything what one has to bring forward.  Also here finally everything comes down again to the “massive size” and “distance” of other celestial bodies, the reason drawn from the analogy of other planets (which is precisely what is to be proved that the Earth is a planet like Mercury etc.); and the reason taken here is from the laws of attraction (which indeed are also only theory, supported by proof of induction, as is clear from the words of the author himself).  The information listed, even if they find them correct, is not proof; at best, they are only reasons of possibility or probability.  But before we come to the discussion of those sizes and distances with which so much pleasure is had because so much can be hidden behind them, the attention must be drawn to one that overthrows the whole theory of the annual orbit of the earth, what has already made for the Copernicans many a headache.

The matter is this.  According to the inflexible theory, the earth describes under the fixed stars a course of 41,000,000 miles in diameter. Thereafter, the fixed stars would now but also assume a different position to the earth at different seasons; you would have to see them at a different angle in different seasons.  If a fixed star does not change its location, but if the Earth itself changed its position 41,000,000 miles in six months, its attitude towards the fixed star changed by 41,000,000 miles, nevertheless, the star would have to apparently stand at these different times at another place (not to be confused with daily position change), that means, as one puts it in astronomy, there would have to be found parallax of the fixed stars. But that is not the case.  Now though however, one will confess to have found parallax only from some fixed stars; but they are even with the best instruments so tiny – barely a half second is the largest angle – that none of this is to be held, particularly if one yet takes into consideration the months which even now, indeed, now more than ever make the calculations uncertain.  More on this later.  One sees that Copernicanism has gotten on a nasty cliff.  [page 332]  But they found a way out.  They set up namely the assertion that fixed stars are removed so infinitely far from the Earth, that with this distance the Earth's orbit is like a point.  Indeed, a considerable point that – the diameter of which measures only 41,000,000 miles.  But really, this one states in all seriousness and talks of it as if it is completely something natural.  One hardly believe his eyes when one reads the ease with which the astronomers ignore the former difficulty.  So writes e.g. Ball on page 193 [sic 194] calmly: “As the whole dimensions of the orbit of the earth are quite insignificant compared with the distances of the stars, the direction of the axis of rotation of the earth points always to the same point on the celestial sphere, i. e., to the point we have already determined as the celestial pole.”

Of course, now there must surely be at least attempts to prove this assertion by the colossal distances.  And what are the proofs? Of course, to calculate distances from Earth.  And all the calculations of the distances of the stars and planets are based on calculating the distance of the Sun from the Earth.  So first it must be found. This is not a simple thing. It must also here be found initially the parallax of the sun. But as Mr. Ball tells us on page 225 of his work: “There is one great difference between the parallax of the sun and the parallax of the moon. The former is so small a quantity as only to be detected by the most careful observations, while the latter is of very considerable amount, being in fact about 400 times greater than that of the sun.”  One avails himself therefore of artificial means in his discovery attempts.  The most popular, though as Ball says not the most reliable, is the opportunity of a passageway of Venus.  Let us hear what Chambers's Encyclopædia says about this: “The mean distance of the sun from the earth, as recently estimated and corrected by Mr. Hind from Le Verrier's determination of the solar parallax, is 91,328,600 miles. The determination of this distance has always been considered the noblest problem of astronomy, chiefly because upon this measure depends every other measure of dimension in astronomy excepting those relating to the moon. The dimensions of the sun and of every planet and satellite, and the distances of stars whose parallaxes are known, can none of them be determined without knowing our distance from the sun, and as the above recent determination gives this distance by nearly 4,000,000 of miles less than the hitherto received measure, it may be well to point out the probable cause of this discrepancy. . . . In proceeding to explain the method adopted for determining the sun’s distance, it is assumed that the relative distances of the earth and the planet Venus [page 333] from the sun is known, and that these are as 100 to 72.  The orbits of both planets being approximately circular, when Venus is between the earth and the sun, her distance from the earth will therefore on this scale be expressed by 28.”   Then, at a Venus transit from two different, distant points of the Earth from the different position of Venus on the solar disc observed (one observes the time difference, when the planet at the same place is seen by the different observation points).  Then from it one calculates the angle that this distance has on the Sun to the Earth, and with the aid of this angle is determined by the ratio indicated the angle which the earth's radius to the Sun maintains.

We consider now: hereafter rests calculating the distance of the sun and then all the other celestial bodies, and also the calculation of its dimensions – in short, the whole theory of the enormous expansion of the world system on the assumption of the relative distance between the Sun, Venus and Earth. And that is called science, in which one is to say of the Bible revoco!

Though Ball gives the method in his book a little bit differently, he also operates with "if we assume" etc.

One considers generally what is to be considered for everything with such calculations to the correction of any observations, the rotation of the earth, its annual locomotion with an assumed speed of eighteen miles per second, twice the variation in the earth's axis, the movement of the planet itself, the progression of the Sun, the refraction of rays by the atmosphere, the perturbations by attraction, the aberration of light, the by no means mathematical accuracy in the measurement of the Earth's diameter.  In addition the mistakes and inaccuracies to which the observations are subjected by the perfection never to be reached of the instruments.  On these “errors of judgment and of workmanship and of eccentricity” Ball has his own chapter. What reliance is there in all this then on the final result of an angle of seven or eight seconds?  Therefore also the calculations of the distance from the sun vary. Previously, one accepted it as over 95,000,000 miles, now we have become a little more modest and merely assume 91,000,000 miles.

With this uncertain distance of the sun from the earth as a base, so we determined distances, sizes, etc. of all other celestial bodies, and calculate the prodigious dimensions out of which, as we have seen, are the welcome means to make Copernicanism probable.

But we have to come back to one. It is what Ball calls “the beautiful phenomenon of the aberration of light".  Ah yes, theoretical astronomers are now seemingly in ecstasy with this [page 334] wonderful discovery, which has helped them out of all trouble in their theory.  Ball indeed says of it, it "would be wholly inconsistent with the hypothesis, that the sun revolves around the earth.”  And Chambers's Encyclopædia says this theory of Bradley "furnishes the only direct and conclusive proof we have of the earth's annual motion”. (Art. Astronomy, p 799 [1888 ed. Vol. 1, pg 373]) What is it with that?

The English astronomer Bradley found an annual apparent motion of the stars in a circle of about 40" diameter in the opposite direction to the circle that would describe a possible parallax.  This phenomenon was a mystery to him until he came to the happy idea, to explain this as an optical illusion caused by the fact that the light of the stars need a long time to come to us due to their immense distance, so that when we see the star, it is a light sent from about a quarter year earlier and so it appears to us in another place due to the advancement of the earth, as it would appear when a light hits us without delay.  Note also this assumption is based from the outset on the condition of the immense distance.  But even apart from that, what compels us then to accept this phenomenon as the only correct explanation that the Earth moves under the stars?  Why should this phenomenon not have other causes?

But Bradley continued his observations and what did he find – yet another cycle of the fixed stars which is taking place in eighteen years and above.  This phenomenon has been attributed to a variation in the Earth's axis, so that we now have two such fluctuations.  Why, since one must now accept such an immense number of all kinds of movements of the Earth and the celestial bodies, also couldn't this observed annual movement of the fixed stars, if it is really fact, have other than the specified cause?

And this theory would be a proof, indeed, “the only direct and decisive proof” of the annual orbit of the Earth?  How can one say that: “The Copernican system is truth and a triumph of the spirit”!

Our result: The Copernican system is nothing less than proven; all efforts of science cannot call into question in the least the biblical view of the relation of the heavenly bodies to each other, on the contrary, what has been found, only helps to confirm that the Scripture in such matters is the truth and that they also in no way accommodate themselves to the misconceptions of man.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      I wish that I could find out who the author "W.M." was so that I could give him more honor.  He appears to have a firm grasp of the science of his day, and probably is somewhat updated from that of J.C.W. Lindemann.  A reader of today might assume that the science in this essay is hopelessly outdated, but I believe that would be a mistake.  Many of the same defenses are discussed and used by Dr. Gerardus Bouw, an Astronomy PhD scientist of today.   Technical terms such as "aberration of light", (Foucault) pendulums, flattening of the Earth's poles, parallax, universal gravitation, etc. are addressed.
      Just a few years after this essay was published, a crack appeared in the fortress of Missouri against Copernicanism.  And it was Pastor Pasche who would warn against this.  I will cover this in a later blog post on Pasche.
      I will leave the technical field and move on to another essayist that Pastor Pasche pointed out from the old (German) Missouri Synod, another one who was not among those mentioned up to this point.  This one comes from an even earlier time, during Walther's tenure... in 1878... in Part 16b.