If the sun doesn't rise… if the Son be not raised…; Nafzger strips Scripture bare (Part 2 of 2)

(Continued from Part 1) [2019-09-21: added quote from Dr. Hummel at bottom in red]

      Dr. Samuel H. Nafzger (WayBk), in his locus "Holy Scripture" in the new LC-MS textbook Confessing the Gospel (to "update Pieper"), stated p. 686: 

“The gospel has a power … independent of the Scriptures”

Nafzger's assertion is in direct opposition to Walther's (and the Lutheran Church's) teaching of sola Scriptura.  Nafzger has taken the LC-MS denial of the Bible's natural history to its natural outcome: stripping the Gospel's power from it. (Isn't this actually the so-called “Gospel reductionism” all over again? Isn't Nafzger's teaching actually the same as that of the 1974 "Walkout"?) How is a Christian today, with Nafzger's teaching, to know for a certainty that Christ was raised so that his faith is not in vain, that he, as a Christian, is not yet in his sins? Matt. 28:6 reports: "He is not here: for he is risen, as he said."  But according to Nafzger, where the Gospel is "independent of the Scriptures", we are forbidden from depending on Scripture for an assurance of faith, there is no "gospel power" in it.  (Just try to reconcile Nafzger's assertion with Luther's teaching on the Sacrament and the Doctrine of Inspiration!)
     Nevertheless, Walther held to the only certain proof that a Christian has today.  He fought for the Bible for dear life, for his spiritual life – it was a matter of life and death. C.F.W. Walther held to an inerrant, inviolable Holy Scripture, all of it. 

===>>> Does the sun rise  (Josh. 10:12-14)? Was Christ really raised (Matt. 28:6)? 

It does, and He was.  How do I know this?  Because He said so, clear as the noonday sun. (Ps. 37:6) — With the ancient Church I confess:

He is Risen!  He is risen indeed! The Bible tells me so!

That is my "Sunrise Service" for the day after Easter, 2019.

[A good antidote to Nafzger's teaching is Prof. Eugene Klug's 1975 Springfielder essay “Saving Faith and the Inerrancy of Scripture” - download here; text with hyperlinks here.]

[2019-09-21: Dr. Horace Hummel, "Are Law and Gospel a Valid Hermeneutical Principle?", CTQ 46-2, p. 188: “ to define 'Gospel' by an appeal to 'Gospel' without firm anchorage in an infallible Bible is simply to beg the question.”]

60 years ago, no sunrise in the Synodical Conference… (Part 1)

Easter 2019 

1 Cor. 15:17 —

“If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.”

Romans 4:25 —

“Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” 

C.F.W. Walther stated in 1880, Der Lutheraner, July 1, 1880:

“If  the sun had (not) stood still at Joshua's prayer (Joshua 10:12-14) …, so also is the whole Bible not true.”

 Unfortunately today, for The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, things are not so clear.

Dr. Ralph Bohlmann, Dr. Samuel Nafzger, Pres. Matthew Harrison

      In November 1972, Dr. Ralph Bohlmann († 2016), Executive Secretary of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, explicitly denied the natural history taught in Joshua 10:12-14 by denying that the Biblical terms "sunrise" and "sunset" refer to actual events that everyone on Earth witnesses… daily.  

He did this in his Study Edition of A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles, pp. 22, 26, and 33. In each instance he referenced the “1959 Statement on Scripture”. This “Statement on Scripture” had been adopted at the 1959 LC-MS Convention here.  Ah, but this statement was first adopted at the 1958 Synodical Conference convention in Lakewood Ohio, August 5-8.  This “Statement on Scripture” may be viewed  here, p 17-22.  In 1959 there was no true Easter sunrise or "Sunrise Service" in the Synodical Conference or the LC-MS – the Biblical term "sunrise" was now said to be only used “symbolically, metaphorically, metonymically” or “in the common language of man”. The passages of Joshua 10:12-14 were utterly ignored. — This story gets much worse than just a denial by the LC-MS and the Synodical Conference of the natural history of Joshua 10:12-14.  The story will continue in the next Part 2…

[2010-04-21: text in red above subsequently added after initial post.] 

Sacramental Theology vs Theology of the Sacrament (Harrison - LC-MS vs Luther and the Word)

[2024-11-30: added link to later post; 24-05-28: added another quote from Luther; 2019-09-01: added another quote for Luther; 2019-05-30: appendix II added on Nicholas Hunnius teaching; 2019-05-19: appendix added at bottom in red on Prof. David Scaer]
      There is much talk of "sacramental theology" in today's LCMS.  On the face of it, they appear to want to defend Lutheranism against the encroachments of the Reformed in today's theological "scene".  After finishing my recent series on Luther's (and Walther's) Doctrine of Inspiration, I came across a reference to a matter that touched on this in Matthew Harrison's 1993 account of his early efforts as a missionary to a native Canadian (or Indian) tribe.  This was published in Logia vol. 7 (1998), no. 3 pp. 29-33 (article only).  Harrison was attempting to negotiate with his Lutheran guides who had already submitted to the demands of the local Reformed missionaries against a Lutheran Holy Communion. At this point, Harrison had grown in his doctrinal understanding and attempted to hold the Lutheran line with the following explanation (p. 31, bolding is mine) :

The plan for a Lutheran church among native Canadians was sidetracked as we argued about the necessity of the sacraments in addition to the word, as though the former might in certain circumstances be jettisoned for the greater good of the “gospel.” Luther, however, saw most clearly that the sacraments are the gospel.” 7      ( 7.  WA 11: 432, 19 ff. [AE 36:277; StL 19, 1310, 6-9])

“The sacraments are the gospel”?  That is how Harrison wanted to emphasize what he considered the difference between Lutherans and Reformed.  What struck me at this point was that Harrison's assertion about Luther's teaching on the Sacrament of the Altar seemed at odds with the way Luther actually taught.  So I went to Luther’s essay that Harrison himself referenced (ad fontes).  Strangely Harrison did not cross reference his Weimar edition footnote to the American Edition, so I had to do this work myself with Steve Born's handy cross-reference. It is in Luther's Works volume 36, pp. 275-305, an essay entitled “The Adoration of the Sacrament”.  What I found was that Luther taught differently than the way Harrison stated it.  In fact in the following essay Luther sounds at times rather more Reformed than Lutheran.  Ah, but just listen to Luther, because all the Reformed sects were first Lutheran:

“The Adoration of the Sacrament”

by Martin Luther (Luther's Works 36, p. 277-278; bolding, enlargement, highlighting are mine)

In the first place, we have often said that the chief and foremost thing in the sacrament is the word of Christ, when he says: “Take and eat, this is my body which is given for you.” Likewise also, when he took the cup, he said: “Take and drink of it, all of you, this is the cup of a new testament in my blood which is shed for You for the forgiveness of sins. As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me.”

Everything depends on these words. Every Christian should and must know them and hold them fast. He must never let anyone take them away from him by any other kind of teaching, even though it were an angel from heaven [Gal. 1:8]. They are words of life and of salvation, so that whoever believes in them has all his sins forgiven through that faith; he is a child of life and has overcome death and hell. Language cannot express how great and mighty these words are, for they are the sum and substance of the whole gospel. This is why these words are far more important than the sacrament itself, and a Christian should make it a practice to give far more attention to these words than to the sacrament. But as a matter of fact the situation everywhere is just the reverse of this because of the false teachers. They have depreciated these words in the eyes of the people, hidden them securely besides, and called attention only to the sacrament. The result is that faith has been lost and the sacrament has been turned into a purely external work devoid of faith.

Now, in accord with this distinction between the words and the sacrament, and in view of the greater worth of the words, one must also measure the honor that is to be bestowed on the sacrament. If you accord less honor to the words than to the sacrament itself, it is a sure sign that you do not properly understand the sacrament. For example, if you bow or kneel before the sacrament, and do not do so even much more before the words of the sacrament, especially in your heart, you are really inverting the honors. For that reason it is highly important to lead the people back from the sacrament to the words, and to accustom them to pay much more attention to the words than to the sacrament; then it would be easy to preach about honoring the sacrament. But where this is not the case, no other kind of preaching will help; there will continue to be nothing but an outward dissembling with respect to the sacrament, with bowing, bending, kneeling, and adoring, but without any spirit or faith.

But the honor which is to be accorded the Word is of two kinds. One kind is external, as when a person writes [its] words with big, beautiful, glowing gold or silver letters, lays it away in beautiful silk cloths, and carefully preserves it. It is external honor also when one cries them aloud and sings them in stately fashion—or out of respect keeps them secret, the un-Christian practice that formerly prevailed. But God and his Word do not care about such childish external honor.

Replacements for the Word
in the LC-MS

The proper way to honor the Word is to fix it in your heart. The heart is its real gilded ciborium. You accord the Word more precious honor with your heart, than if you were to build a ciborium for the sacrament out of pure gold or the most costly jewels.

For it is certainly true that you can have life, righteousness, and salvation without the sacrament, but you cannot have life, righteousness, and salvation without the Word, even though you were to receive the sacrament not only three times a day (as the priests do at Christmas) but even three times an hour.

Now when I say that you should fix the Word of God in your heart I do not mean merely that you should know it and meditate on it. That is nothing. I mean rather that you should regard and esteem it as it ought to be regarded and esteemed.

That is, you should hold it to be a living, eternal, all-powerful Word that can make you alive, free from sin and death, and keep you so eternally; that brings with it everything of which it speaks, namely, Christ with his flesh and blood and everything that he is and has. For it is the kind of Word that can and does do all these things, and therefore it should be so regarded. That is its own proper honor. It is not satisfied with any other kind of honor. In short, the proper honor for the Word is nothing else than a genuine faith from the bottom of one’s heart, a faith that holds the Word to be true, that trusts it and stakes its life upon it for eternity.

That is what we have believed and still believe about this sacrament. But in order that we may better understand and grasp it, let us treat the matter more fully and show how so many wanton spirits have taken offense at it. In this way we will see how impossible it is to stay on the right track when the Word is not held in the highest esteem and when faith in it is not exercised.

= = = = = = = = = = = =
To be clear, Matthew Harrison said that Luther said

"The sacraments are the gospel" (Harrison's italics)

but Luther said

"These words are the sum and substance of the whole gospel." (my italics)

Luther uses the word "word" or "words" or "Word" 25 times in these early paragraphs of his essay.  Pure gold — not the 24-carat gold of the ciborium — but spiritual gold for a believer's heart.  There is plenty of teaching in this essay to refute the Reformed doctrine of Holy Communion and it was actually written to some who were reported to "not hold to the real presence".  But Luther's teaching at the same time forcefully teaches against the Roman ex opere operato: i.e. the work itself is meritorious. — Now with Luther's encouragement (adoration) for the Word first, I can believe what is not possible to believe by my own reason or strength, my freedom from sin and death. And second, that the true body and blood are distributed "in, with, and under" the bread and wine and contain God's forgiveness of sins.
      No, President Matthew Harrison, your assertion, that "the sacraments are the gospel", is a weak one that allows the notion of a sacrament without the Word. Your assertion falls on Luther's teaching that one can have saving faith without the sacrament.  Your assertion leaves one to think that you, as Luther says, "accord less honor to the words than to the sacrament itself". Your assertion falls if your "adoration" is not first and foremost an adoration of the Word. I was taught in my youth a better way of thinking about the sacraments, that they are the "visible Word", a phrase that naturally teaches what Luther inculcates above. The Gospel is contained in the Word, and the Sacraments are built on the Word that contains the Gospel.
      No, President Harrison, go Back To Luther on the Theology of the Sacrament. Then you can be a proper missionary to those native Canadians (Indians), and you can send out proper Christian (Lutheran) missionaries to the world, missionaries who adore the Word… first.  The Sacrament will then naturally follow.

[There are so many refutations of today's LCMS teachers in just these paragraphs of Luther that I almost went dizzy trying to figure out which ones to use.  I plan to reference this post for some upcoming blogs.]
= = = = = = = = = = =

2024-05-28: Adding to the above essay by Luther "The Adoration of the Sacrament" is his essay "The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests", AE 38, 139-214 [StL 19, 1220-1285]. On page 189, StL 19:1261 , Luther stated: 

"And because the word of God is the greatest, most necessary, and most sublime part in Christendom (for the sacraments cannot exist without the word, but indeed the word can exist without the sacraments, and in an emergency one could be saved without the sacraments—as for example, those who die before receiving the desired baptism—but not without the word)…"

Wilhelm Preger also quoted from this passage, see this blog post, p. 171. 

2019-05-19 Appendix I: Harrison's theology matches the teaching of Prof. David Scaer who stated in his 2000 CTQ essay "Reformed Exegesis and Lutheran Sacraments: Worlds in Conflict", p. 8: 

"In Reformed thought, faith, and not the sacraments, is seen as necessary for salvation."

It is striking that Scaer attempts to refute Reformed theology on this foundational Lutheran article (sola fide). We see that his theology is at sharp odds with that of Martin Luther's, who said above:

"For it is certainly true that you can have life, righteousness, and salvation without the sacrament, but you cannot have life, righteousness, and salvation without the Word." 

Isn't Scaer's theology rather un-Confessional, un-Lutheran?
- - - - - - - - - -
2019-05-30 Appendix II: In Nicholas Hunnius's book Diaskepsis Theologica, a book defending against the Reformed, he confirms Luther's teaching above on p. 189, § 448: "…the use of the holy Supper is not required as an absolute necessity."
2019-09-01 Appendix III: In Luther's Works, volume 36, p. 289, Luther said: 

"Just as you cannot make out of the gospel a sacrifice or a work, so you cannot make a sacrifice or a work out of this sacrament; for this sacrament is the gospel."  

Although Harrison could have used this quote to better effect, yet he did not.  But this statement in no way contradicts what Luther said above, for he is refuting all notion of the sacrament offering any merit for man, or what is termed "ex opere operato".

2024-11-30: see this later blog post for a similar theme.

A horse named Justify… & Christianity? Not by LCMS theologians

[2019-05-14: added reference to McGrath book in red below]
      Last year there appeared a horse favored to win the Kentucky Derby that had an intriguing name: "Justify".  That name gave me a strong notion that it came from something entirely apart from the things of this world.  After the horse then went on to win the Kentucky Derby, I occasionally thought to do a blog post... but did not.  That thought kept coming back to me forcefully as that horse then went on to win not only the Kentucky Derby, but also the famed Triple Crown.  But each time, I let the opportunity to do a blog post fade away.  But then yesterday, after becoming tired of reading too much from today's LCMS theologians, that thought returned to me and so I did what most people do... I Googled the question:

"Why did they name that horse 'Justify'"?

The first one or two Google listings spoke nothing of what I wondered about.  But then Google presented the definitive answer to the question.  It surprisingly came from horseracingnation.com, a website that evidently is funded, at least in part, by the betting or gambling trade.  But O! my notion was confirmed... that name was no ordinary name.   Now I just want to reprint the exact text of the report by Jonathan Lintner:

horseracingnation.com June 18, 2018 (Archive)

“WinStar Farm does not take lightly the naming of young horses who could go on to become stallion prospects, as it's both a Kentucky-based racing and breeding operation.  – Single-word monikers are often "strong" and "stallion kind of names," said Elliott Walden (*), WinStar's president and CEO. From his farm, they're often rooted in Christian terms, too.  – That intersection resulted in Justify.  – Walden said after the horse completed his Triple Crown sweep that the name comes from the New Testament book of Romans, which "talks about being justified by faith."  – "It was a name that was available, and we looked for that as a great opportunity," Walden said. "Blessed that this horse has a great name."  –  Walden credited Amy Nave (*), his office manager and executive assistant, not just for coming up with Justify but also names such as Creator, the 2016 Belmont Stakes winner, Commissioner and Constitution.   –  "She does a remarkable job because we have 30 to name each year," Walden said.    –  Of course, there are many versions of scripture to consult. But here's one example of Romans, Chapter 10, Verses Rom. 10:9-10, from BibleGateway.com:   –   "9 If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."”

Hmmm.... a Bible lesson on horseracingnation.com???!!!   What hath God wrought!

Elliott Walden ——  Amy Nave:
Name comes from NT: "justified by faith"
(not Lutherans?)

Here are the two people responsible for the naming of the horse "Justify": ==== (from WinStar Farm) ====>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I want to give these two people prominence on this Lutheran blog.  Why?  Because it was Martin Luther who, at the 1541 Diet of Regensburg, relied totally on "justified by faith alone", to defend against the Roman Catholic falsification of this basic doctrine of all Christianity.  And so it was determined that there can never be fellowship as Christians with that church body.  But I suspect that Walden and Nave are not Lutherans!  Why so? Because the LCMS has starved its members and all Lutheranism from a pure understanding of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.  How so?  In the recent 2018 textbook Confessing the Gospel (by editor Samuel Nafzger to "update Pieper") for teaching its pastors, the LCMS failed to include a major heading for "Justification". There are 15 headings, e.g. "God", "Creation", "Work of Christ", etc., but no heading named "Justification".  It seems that this word is to be camouflaged from view.  This LCMS textbook (p. 481, 497, [2019-03-11 added links] etc.) would rather follow a non-Lutheran Alistair Mcgrath, who differs from Lutheran theology as reported by V.P. Daniel Preus (Logia 1996 here, p. 19):

“... McGrath, who believes that the doctrine of justification was not the leading principle of the Reformation and ‘that it is no longer possible to assert with any degree of certainty that the Reformation began as a consequence of Luther’s new insights into man’s justification’”. [2019-05-14: ref. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, vol. 2:1, 10]

Ah, but there is that name of the winner of the Triple Crown… 

“Justify”

and I want to rub it in the noses of the teachers of today's LCMS.

There is more to my story, but I will not take up more screen space – view it in "Read More" section below:

Schrift 18: Walther's other 13 Theses- Inspiration, Luther's Doctrine

      This concludes from Part 17 (Table of Contents in Part 1) a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. — Walther is noted for his "Thirteen Theses" on the doctrine of Election of Grace, or Predestination.  But the following 13 Theses should be elevated to a similar level of importance in the Lutheran Church today.  To preface this listing, I repeat Walther's statements introducing Luther's own words (see Part 7):

“There is no essential aspect in the doctrine of inspiration of our systematicians that could not be substantiated by Luther's clear statements.  Let  us then, for the following main aspects of the doctrine of inspiration of our dogmatists, obtain the evidence from Luther's writings:”

Walther's Thirteen Theses – Luther's Doctrine of Inspiration

I. All of Holy Scripture is a work of the Holy Spirit. (Parts 8 & 9)

II. There is a specific difference between a prophet in the true sense and a worldly and indirectly enlightened pure teacher. (Part 10)

III. In the Holy Scriptures, nothing is in vain. (Part 10)

IV. The Scripture is free of error. (Part 11)

V. The Scripture is nowhere in contradiction with itself. (Part 12)

VI. At each letter and tittle of Scripture is infinitely much located, and the whole Church is bound to all of them. (Part 12)

VII. The simplistic presentation peculiar to Scripture, and the description therein of minor things, God himself has the Holy Spirit as author. (Part 13)

VIII. Even where the Scriptures report on sexual matters which are offensive to the natural sentiment, the Holy Spirit himself is the correspondent. (Part 13)

IX. Also the lack of proper order, which seems to be found here and there in the Scriptures, has its reason in the wisdom of God the Holy Spirit. (Part 14)

X. Also what the Scriptures say of Natural History is said by God the Holy Spirit Himself. (Part 15)

XI. Also the chronological information in the Holy Scriptures is of divine origin. (Part 15)

XII. The interpretation of the Old Testament given by Christ and the Apostles is the authentic interpretation of the Holy Spirit Himself. (Part 16)

XIII. Even where one cannot understand the Scriptures, one must contemplate and treat them with holy awe and confess one's ignorance. (Part 17)

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

      Let no Lutheran teacher of today deceive you – this is Luther's doctrine.  Let no Lutheran teacher deceive you concerning "Lutheran Orthodoxy" or the "dogmaticians", for all their essential teachings on this doctrine were established by Luther. And Walther is to be credited as the leader in presenting Luther's doctrine to our modern age.  Those who purposely avoid (or twist) Walther and claim Luther for their cause are demonstrated to be weak at best, false teachers at worst.

SOLA SCRIPTURA!  Amen! Amen!

Schrift 17: #13 Even if cannot understand…; Walther's Warning; Franzmann's smokescreen, LC-MS questions Scripture

[2019-02-18: added missing underlining]
      This continues from Part 16 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. — Walther reaches the last of his Thirteen Theses, his testimony for the Lutheran Church that was in sore need of a clear confession of Luther's clear teaching. And later below, to show how this Doctrine of Scripture is still a burning issue in the LC-MS…  But for now, let us first listen to Martin Luther… and C.F.W. Walther's great warning:

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

Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 16)

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, March, p. 75-76, "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

XIII. Even where one cannot understand the Scriptures, one must consider and treat them with sacred awe and confess one's ignorance.

“Therefore we should not allow the statements about Christ [of the Old Testament], concerning whom Jacob began to speak, to be torn apart. He stated that Christ would be the Lord of the heathen and that peoples throughout the world would listen to Him. Let us cling to the resolution to speak about Christ and not invent a hysteron proteron (foreign figures) as an appendage. But if understanding fails us, let us leave the office of instructor to the Holy Spirit. Only let us not approve of that confusion of the text. For I shall prefer to confess that I do not understand it.” (Genesis, 1545. II, 2912-2913 § 176 [StL 2, 1978 § 176; LW 8, 247)

Finally, we repeat Luther's saying here: “For God’s Word is not to be toyed with. If you cannot understand it, take off your hat to it.” (Exposition of a Passage from Jeremiah 23, 1526. VI, 1396 §41 [StL 6, 872-3 § 41; NOT in LW]) — [see also Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 57]

Thus we have hereby presented Luther's doctrine of inspiration in his own words from the most varied periods of his life and work. Hereby compare, among others, Luthardt's  and Cremer's relative judgment. [see parts 2 and 7 above] Luthardt dares to write, that the (Page 76) accusing of Holy Scripture of many errors thus represents Prof. Volck's “the truly religious view in the sense of Luther”!  Cremer asserts with Luthardt that Luther believes so little in the inspiration of the Scriptures that he knew rather to speak “of hay, straw, and stubble, which the prophets have lost in their own good thoughts”. In fact, both Luthardt and Cremer want to understand thus of the prophets, whose writings constitute a major part of the Holy Scriptures!  

As little as it is to honor these learned, even Lutheran, theologians, it is enough that they hereby reveal how little they are at home in Luther's writings and how little they are reliable in their historical statements even on such important questions, this is by no means the most terrible thing. Sup­pose that – it pains us to write it down – 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! [ref. this blog post, part 3a; Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pg 306]

Luther writes in his Great Confession of  the sacrament on the Alloeosis of Zwingli: "Beware, beware, I say, of the alloeosis! For it is a devil's mask, for at last it manufactures such a Christ after whom I certainly would not be a Christian; namely, that henceforth Christ should be no more and do no more with His sufferings and life than any other mere saint. For if I believe this that only the human nature has suffered for me, then Christ is to me a poor Savior, then He Himself indeed needs a Savior. In a word, it is unspeakable what the devil seeks by the alloeosis.” (Cited in the Formula of Concord, Art. VIII, p. 682, § 40 [BookOfConcord.org, Triglotta p. 1029])  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 [Page 77] 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.”

We know well what awaits our seemingly excessive explanation. One will despise it and deride as a sign of a zeal not according to knowledge, if not worse. But woe to us if we are here, where it is not even just this or that doctrine of the Scriptures, but where it says: “If the foundations be destroyed” (Ps. 11:3), “Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof” (Ps. 137:7), if we are silent even though we do not belong to the scholars but want to be Christians! Then the stones would have to cry out. — God have mercy upon His poor Christendom in this last age of distress and danger [ref. this blog].         W[alther].

= = = = = = = = = =   End of essay. Series continues in Part 18  = = = = = = = = = = =

For those who want to now read Walther's essay without my commentary and polemics, it is available to view directly >>>  HERE  <<<.

Luther and Walther teach: 

Holy Scripture is Divine only, NOT “divine-human”. 

Sola Scriptura!

      I have worked over a period of 6 months preparing this series – translating, researching sources, preparing blog posts.  But all my work was energized by Walther's passionate plea to essentially go “Back to the Bible”.  Walther not only taught this, he preached it.  I would end this series by quoting from one of Prof. Manteufel's references using Pastor Joel Baseley's translation from Walther's Occasional Sermons (Casual Predigton), p. 139:

“O precious book! O book of books! You are a still pool of water on earth in which are reflected all the stars in the unseen heavens. You are the comforting letter from our eternal home, sent to us in this foreign land. You are the key of heaven for weary pilgrims who wander through this world filled with error, doubt, sins, fear and need. You are the Word of our God, our heavenly Father!” — C.F.W. Walther

      Andrew Dickson White called Walther's Missouri Synod a "late survival of an ancient belief based upon text-worship".  Would to God that LC-MS preachers preached like this!  Walther attacked the famous "Lutheran" theologians of Germany for their unbelief.  Today, he would be attacking the teachers of the LC-MS.

Franzmann's (& LC-MS) “Smokescreen” ("Read More »" disabled)

      My hope that the LCMS will come back, Back to the Bible, was recently demolished (again) by the upcoming CPH book Breath of God Yet Work of Man.  This book is promoted as the first in the series entitled "Lutheran Leadership Development Program" (LLDP) and promoted (Archive; also here) for the "Lutheran Churches of the West" who

"are exploring if the ILC can be a welcome home for them. Other church bodies in the West, who have been persecuted for not conforming to the views of Western society, likewise are seeking refuge in the ILC. In order to help the ILC meet these opportunities… the establishment of the Lutheran Leadership Development Program (LLDP)." (ILC 26th Conference Workbook, 25-28 September 2018)"

Gen. 1-3: 'symbolic'
LC-MS model theologian

While the stated purpose of this book is refreshing, yet rather than follow Martin Luther, it follows Martin Franzmann (Look Inside p. 7) as its model theologian for "Inerrancy", and so establishes again that its confession is weak at best, false at worst. How can this be since Franzmann explicitly said of the 'verbally inspired, infallible Word' in his noted essay "Seven Theses…"(p. 244): "This is Biblical and Lutheran and not to be surrendered."? It is because Franzmann also defended the following position on Genesis 1-3 (p. 22) 

"[Genesis 1-3] in general is a ‘symbolic’ or concrete representation of divine truths concerning the fall of the first man."

Franzmann's defense of a “symbolic” Genesis 1-3 only threw fuel on the fire of doubt in the LC-MS (and in me 45 years ago) about the truthfulness of this clear account of the Bible.  Franzmann's "defense" of the "verbally inspired, infallible Word" appears to be actually using what Dr. Armand Boehme calls a "Smokescreen Vocabulary". — The LC-MS standpoint is further confirmed in this new book in several places available for public viewing:

1. in the Foreword to this book (Look Inside, p. xviii) by Dr. Lawrence Rast Jr. who characterizes its "narrative" as giving "consideration of the nature and character of Scripture… to capture its divine and human elements".  
2. On p. 384 (Look Inside): "one might ponder if Genesis 1… may have a deeper, Eastern meaning." [Yet the LC-MS claims it holds to the Brief Statement, § 5.]
3. p. 385 (Look Inside): "Lutherans need not fear that Luther's hermeneutics are somehow sectarian or contrived." [Why would Lutherans fear this?... maybe the authors do fear this?]
4. p. 431 (Look Inside): "You can trust a physicist" ["Science" wins over a clear passage of Scripture, even while they claim to defend the clarity of Scripture, p. 238 f. etc.]

The title of this book says it all: the Bible is a "Work of Man".  —  If that is not enough evidence of the LC-MS teaching of a "divine-human" Scripture, one of the chapters in the new CPH textbook on Systematic Theology Confessing the Gospel (Look Inside, p. xiv-xv) is entitled:

“The Attributes of Scripture: A Human Book”

      Enough of today's LC-MS!  Just listen to Martin Luther… and C.F.W. Walther.  The next concluding post (Part 18) is to aid those who would do that… and so be Lutheran.