JCWL 7: Finale, 9 more: Rusmeyer, Schmidt, Geier, Carpzov, Hollmann, FE Rambach, Stroebel, Knak, Gruntvig; Kepler, Tycho

      This continues from Part 6 (Table of Contents in Part 1), an 8-part series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1873 article "Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians." — Lindemann finishes his "List"  with a flourish, a rapid fire, of names. As long as the "List" is, we may add the name that C.F.W. Walther spoke of in 1868 – Carl Gottlob Hofmann.  We may also add two more notable names that Pastor F.E. Pasche included: Abraham Calov († 1686) and Valentin Ernst Löscher  († 1749).

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

Excerpt from Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt, vol. 8 (1873) pp. 65-74, 107-116; translation by BackToLuther; all highlighting, red text in [] square brackets, images, and hyperlinks are mine, underlining in original.

Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann, Part 7 of 8, pp. 112-114]

Dr. Michael Christian Rusmeyer, professor of theology at Greifswald and pastor at St. Marien there, writes in his Historical Foundations of Knowledge of the Truth to Godliness (Hamburg, 1724), p. 344, from Joshua’s struggle against the Canaanites: 

“In this battle God fought more from Heaven than the Israelites on Earth. For God caused a great hail to rain on the enemies and killed them. But Joshua became so joyful in God that, out of desire to chasten his enemies, he ordered the Sun and the Moon to stand still in the heavens. But God was so pleased with the boldness of this mighty man who fought in the faith, that he had no hesitation, according to the will of a man, to hinder the whole course of heavens, and to set the Sun and the Moon exactly in the place where Joshua had commanded them to stand still. Joshua 10:1-21.”

Johann Jacob Schmidt, pastor of Peest and Palow in Pomerania, author of Biblical History and similar writings, says in his Biblical Naturalist [Physicus] (2nd ed., Leipzig 1748, Preface p. 7): That one would well depart from the view of Scripture 

“if the Copernicans, in the well-known dispute about the standstill of the Sun and the rotation of the Earth, instead of probabilities, as they have hitherto used them, were to put forward quite clear and irrefutable reasons for proving their system, and of the same (which is not believed to have happened yet) could dispense with all doubts and thus show that such is necessarily the only true thing.” [Rambach may allow a crack in the fortress with this?]

Geier   —   Carpzov — Hollmann
(Siegesbeck not pictured)

One of the Lutheran theologians who rejects Copernicus’s view is [Martin] Geier, who in his Commentary on the Psalms (1695) [1697 Google Books] speaks only of the doctrine of the Bible. Likewise, the famous Johann Gottlob Carpzov, who died in 1767 as superintendent in Lübeck, after having previously been professor of theology and the Hebrew language at Leipzig (Ramb. 309.). — L. [Johann Georg] Siegesbeck [scientist, naturalist] also wrote against the Copernican system. [1686-1755; 2 books here & here - online] — Sam. Christian Hollmann [philosopher, naturalist], died in 1787 as a professor of philosophy in Göttingen, published a treatise “On the obligation of a Christian astronomer for the Scriptures.”

Friedrich Eberhard Rambach [ADB bio] translated David Collier's Introduction to the Right Sense and Useful Reading of Scripture in 1759. In this book, under “History of the Jews under Joshua” (American Edition 1845, p. 176) it reads:

“Finally we notice that at the command of Joshua [page 113] the Sun stood still, chapter 10, as at the later time the shadow on the sundial of Ahaz went down ten degrees, 2 Kings. 20:11, and that therefore the whole arrangement of the heavens was changed, which is indeed very miraculous and must be taken as such. But we must doubt just as little that He Who made heaven could change the position of it and put it in order again, as that One who makes a clock should not be able to disorder its movement and also put it in order again. Presumably this happened in such a way that the night became so much shorter as the day became longer. So we do not need to agree with some people, both Jews and Christians, that God has either placed an extraordinary body of light like the Sun in the sky, or that He stopped the light of it merely by reflecting it back. The prophet Habakkuk 3:11 [Luther’s Bible Hab. 4:11] presents it as it really happened.”

Since Rambach translates these words without any further remark, it can certainly be assumed that he agreed with Collier.

Upon closer and more careful research, it would undoubtedly emerge that the most competent teachers of the faithful Lutheran Church down to our times have decisively rejected the Copernican system because it argues against experience and against the Bible without being able to give any solid reason for its own protection. In Germany this group includes for example Licentiate Ströbel. But here in America, too, there are not a few Lutheran pastors who would rather stick to God's Word than accept an unfounded human opinion.

But even among those Lutherans who do not take the faithfulness to the Confession of the church very seriously, there are men who spurn the “scholars” to make an assertion that violates the Bible as much as it is against common sense. It is worth remembering Pastor [Gustav] Knak in Berlin, who is grossly wronged even by Christians because he can not agree with modern science.

N.S.F. Grundtvig
Danish theologian

Similar to Knak was the recently deceased N. Fr. S. Grundtvig [LuW10 1864 essay here], who caused a sensation as a pastor in Copenhagen at the time. He was just as keen a theologian [But see note below] as a thorough historian. In his World Chronicle (literally translated by Dr. Volkmann, 1837) [not online] he speaks (p. 139) of our matter as follows: 

“Tycho knew the Copernican riddle and rejected it, but certainly not from religious concerns.” 

And he adds in Note 22 (at the back): 

“How great Tycho's knowledge of the course of the heavens was, that will probably have to be taught in the time to come; for his master has not yet appeared, and that his students [i.e. Kepler!] commanded, according to their heads, the Sun to stand still and the earth to run eastward and westward [i.e. Copernicanism], [page 114] shows where their minds are, but by no means where he had his. But he showed this himself through the artificial celestial sphere that he made, and if it had not been robbed by the flames in 1728 (in the great fire of Copenhagen), it would probably have cost the astronomers of the 18th century enough headaches not only to understand it, but also to produce a counterpart that depicted the course of the Earth in their brains. It would certainly be easier for an astronomer to assemble a picture from Tycho's writings and have it executed by the artists of our day; a work that would perhaps promote science more than all the observations and calculations based on the prejudice that the Copernican hypothesis (which Brahe knew well and rejected, certainly not out of religious hesitation) was infallible because it contradicts the words of the Bible, the healthy sense and the straight eye.”

= = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 8  = = = = = = = = = =
Kepler – “less than ethical”?

      Although Grundtvig does not mention Kepler by name, he is clearly referred to when G. speaks of Tycho Brahe's “students” that “commanded… the Sun to stand still”. This seems meant to criticize Kepler for where his "mind" was.  Although Wikipedia does not mention it, even Space.com admits to Kepler’s unethical methods (here, 🔗): “…Brahe's observations, Kepler, by his own admission, less-than-ethically acquired them after Tycho died.” — It is too bad that neither source mentions that Kepler was also expelled from Graz (Austria) by the Romanists for his Protestant faith. (Text of Kepler's letter to Maestlin)

Grundtvig – questionable motive

      Grundtvig, a famous Danish theologian, is surprising in his defense against Copernicanism because he held a low view of Holy Scripture.  Lindemann seems unaware of this even though in 1864 Lehre und Wehre republished an article on Grundtvig from Germany that exposed his theology, describing it thus, p. 144:

"The Word of the Scriptures, fixed in the letter, is in itself dead and cannot create life for itself… The Reformers were wrong to base the faith of the Church on the Bible alone; they thereby established a new papacy."

Grundtvig's theology does not fit with the other theologians quoted in Lindemann's essay, but it does fit today's teachers of the LC-MS. —

Naturalists, Scientists

Tycho Brahe

      Two of the scholars cited above, Siegesbeck and Hollmann, were not theologians but "naturalists" or scientists, and yet they held against the opinion of Copernicus.  And of course Tycho Brahe is held high.  To add to this high name in Science is a defining quote from him in his Wikipedia article (here, 🔗):

"According to Tycho, the idea of a rotating and revolving Earth would be 'in violation not only of all physical truth but also of the authority of Holy Scripture, which ought to be paramount.'"

More on Tycho's Christian faith here (p. 110-111), and here. — In the concluding Part 8 we hear of how the defense of the Bible weakened through the centuries.

JCWL 6: Stock, Scharff, Engelschall, J.J. Rambach – “Lindemann's List” grows against Copernicanism

      This continues from Part 5 (Table of Contents in Part 1), an 8-part series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1873 article "Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians." — By now "Lindemann's List" is getting rather long… don't you think?  Let us hear from even more Christian teachers in the defense against Copernicanism… Lutherans.

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

Excerpt from Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt, vol. 8 (1873) pp. 65-74, 107-116; translation by BackToLuther; all highlighting, red text in [] square brackets, images, and hyperlinks are mine, underlining in original.

Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann, Part 6 of 8, pp. 109-112]

Christian Stock (born 1672; died February 4, 1730 as a professor of philosophy in Jena) writes of the Sun [Sonne] in his “Homiletische Real-Lexikon” (3rd ed. 1741, p. 1004) [4th ed. 1749 here]: 

“The speed of its course is so great that, according to the calculations of some experienced stars, it runs ten times 100,000 miles, i.e. that no bullet is fired from a gun or barrel, no bird in the air, however quickly it flies, could do the same, indeed one could not even compare it with them.” 

And Stock wrote this even though he knew the new teaching of Copernicus.

Master Gottfried Balthasar Scharff, senior minister at Schweidnitz published in 1717 The Perverted Bible of the Ungodly, a sermon book in order to “expose to the ridiculous children of the world the foolishness of their sinful excuses”. In it is written on the preparatory sermon, p. 1: 

“I think... instead for Copernicus not to persuade the people, that the Earth always turns around, and the heavens stand still; for as they are made, I nevertheless firmly believe that the great Builder of them knows best how to speak of them, who let us be assured by the holy David: ‘Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth’.” [Ps. 119:90]

Master Carl Gottfried Engelschall [1675-1738], royal and electoral court preacher, wrote an excellent book in 1719, which bears the title: Void Prejudices of Today's World in Doctrines of the Faith. In it he also refutes the claim that the theology of Cartesius [René Descartes, who “considered himself to be a devout Catholic”] was often heard at the time is the safest. He also meets [page 110] the objections that the Cartesians make against the Scriptures, and says among other things: 

“The foremost thing they object to is that the Sun should be moved and the Earth, on the other hand, should stand still. They assume that it is undeniable that the Earth is being moved and that the Sun is on the contrary without movement. Although they cannot reasonably confirm this better than we deny it. Did God have the power to create the Sun out of nothing as an astonishing body, then why shouldn't he have been able to make it move indescribably fast? “The Sun rises and sets, and runs to its place so that it rises again. But the Earth remains forever,” Ecclesiastes 1:5-6. Or as 1 Chron. 16:30 [sic] says: “Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” What could be but a clearer testimony of the Holy Spirit than this, which no dizzy mind is able to overturn. And certainly, there are also reasons in the schools of the worldly wise that some Cartesians should still be anxious and afraid of before they can come up with anything more thorough. Reason teaches us that the more fluid and flowing a body is, the more flexible it is; however, the thicker and harder it is, the less inclined it is to move. Now if an intelligent mathematician wished to make a comparison between the fact that the Sun is much smaller than the Earth, and between the Sun’s flowing and therefore its skilled nature to move, he would perhaps see that one had no cause to cry out the motion of the Sun as an incomprehensible thing. The senses themselves seem to contradict the Cartesian and Copernican claims. — — But telling the truth, this convinces me most of all of the falseness of the Cartesian hypothesis: a gunner points his mortar at a certain target, throws the bomb at where it is actually aimed. Now it is found that, if he is well versed in his art, he also happily achieves his end purpose. I ask: how could this be possible if the Earth were moved? The bomb will be in the air for at least a minute, so it would have to fall 300 miles from the target because the Earth moves so much and more in a minute. If one wanted to say: the atmosphere would be moved at the same time as the Earth, so I answer: No one will talk me into thinking that, even if this is true, their movement should be as strong and violent as the movement of a bomb projected from the fire mortar. For the sake of popular brevity, no other evidence is to be remembered.”

A clear and well-founded opponent of the Copernican system was also J. J. Rambach, born in 1693, died on April 19, 1735 as a superintendent and professor in Giessen. In his Church History [page 111] of the Old Testament (II, 77. ff.) he notes on Josh. 10:11-13 [Lindemann translates Hebrew and Latin into his native language, German, now English]:

“This history is usually used as one of the strongest evidences that the Earth is still and the Sun runs around. Because Joshua says: “Sun, stand by Gibeon!” It is also noted that this root (the Hebrew word for “stand, rest, silent”) is used for immovable stones, Exodus 15:16 and Hab. 2:19; hence the common translation: Sun, do not move! so that this indicates a rest or interruption of the movement. But if now an interruption of the movement, then a movement is assumed – therefore one concludes:

In the case where a daily movement is forbidden, there must necessarily be a daily movement.

Now the Sun is prohibited from daily movement.

So the Sun has to have a daily movement.

Some Copernicans who profess a standstill of the Sun and a movement of the Earth respond to this, that is to say they profess blasphemy (!) [lästerlich; Walther is less harsh than Rambach, more tolerant for the weak of faith.]: ‘The Scripture has accommodated and directed itself according to the erroneous concept of the common rabble.’ (* We will examine this claim in more detail on another occasion.) But others know a better way out of this difficulty and say: Joshua asked for nothing more than an extension of the day, namely that the Sun should not so soon leave the horizon where the battle was fought. Therefore it says: ‘Sun, stand still in Gibeon’, that is, the Sun should remain immovable in the line of sight in which Joshua saw it standing over the city of Gibeon. Now, they say, a rest of the Sun was needed, so Joshua said: “Rest, Sun!” However, Joshua did not determine how this rest of the Sun should take place. He only asked that the Sun remain above the horizon. That could now, they say, just as well happen if the rotation of the Earth around its own axis was inhibited as if the progressive movement of the Sun were interrupted. Therefore, they believe that the Earth has stopped rotating around its own axis.

But if you ask them: Why did Joshua address the Sun? Why didn't he say: Earth stand still, but Sun stand still? So they answer: Joshua had known that the Sun was the cause of the movement and that the movement of the Earth depended on its movement around its own axis, so he only addressed the Sun because then the Moon, Earth and all planets have to stand still at the same time, but have also started moving again with the Sun, so there is no confusion in nature caused by this miracle. With the Tychonic hypothesis (according to which the Earth stands still), a miraculous return is necessary. [page 112] 

This is how some want to explain it, who absolve Joshua and the Scriptures from acceding to the erring minds of the common people.

But the question still arises: why did he address the Moon in particular? — But these are things that indicate astronomy, not history; so let’s leave it at that.”

= = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 7  = = = = = = = = = =

      As noted above, Rambach's charge of "blasphemy" against Copernican theologians is harsher than Walther's warning.  Yet Walther's warning is actually the strongest of them all because his warning can be held for all time and for all Copernican Christians who are putting their spiritual life in danger.  And our Heavenly Father does not want us to do this, but He wants us to rather hold to His Word… period (or "full stop" or "Punkt") Psalm 119:105. – For those who want to believe their Bible, and so remain Christian, Lindemann offers us wonderful refreshment from those who have gone before and fought the good fight for Holy Scripture, as Christian teachers should. — In the next Part 7…

JCWL 5: Hollaz: "Christ, the figurative Sun" (Psalm 19:4-6); Kepler vs Tycho; 5 of 8

      This continues from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1), an 8-part series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1873 article "Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians." — This segment focuses solely on Lutheran theologian David Hollaz.  After highlighting a Scriptural basis, he also delves into matters of natural history – more on that below.

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

Excerpt from Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt, vol. 8 (1873) pp. 65-74, 107-116; translation by BackToLuther; all highlighting, red text in [] square brackets, images, and hyperlinks are mine, underlining in original.

Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann, Part 5 of 8, pp. 107-109]

David Hollaz (born 1648, died 1713 as pastor and provost at Jakobshagen [now Dobrzany in Poland]) raises the question in his Examen (I, 402): *) “Is the earth made to move so that it moves in a circle and should determine the times through its movement?” He answers as follows:

——————

*) Pastor Dorn kindly informed me of the following from Hollaz. L.[Lindemann]

——————

“a) The all-wise Creator created the Earth so that it does not move in its entirety, but rather rests; b) but He gave the office to the heavenly lights that they determine the time through their movement.”

Hollaz then proves the correctness of this answer:

On a)

“1. the Scriptures deny the movement of the Earth: Ps. 104:5: He founded the Earth on its foundation and it will never be moved forever. †)  Like a builder bases the house on a foundation so that it can not move against the storms stand, the heavenly master has firmly founded the building of the Earth so that it can never be moved from its place at any time until the Last Day.

——————

†) Hollaz uses the Latin Bible of Sebastian Schmidt [German Wiki], who translated the Hebrew text literally; hence it is that the words of Scripture differ somewhat from Luther's translation. L.

——————

2. A standing or resting is attributed to the Earth: Ecclesiastes 1:4: “The earth abideth for ever.”; Ps. 119:90: “Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.”

On b)

1. A movement is attributed to the heavenly lights: Ecclesiastes 1:5: “The Sun also ariseth, and the Sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”

2. Christ is compared to the running Sun: Ps. 19:4-6: “The Sun, which as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit (circuito) unto the ends of it to the ends thereof.” It is true that these words are to be understood of Christ, the figurative Sun, which is elucidated from the passage of Paul in Romans 10:18 [and Ro. 10:15]; but they are taken from the realm of nature and Christ is compared to the natural Sun, which comparison could not take place [page 108] if the Sun was standing still and the Earth, like the other planets, moved around the Sun.

3. The standing still of the Sun, which happened to the warring Joshua, is believed to be an astonishing miracle. But if the Sun was not moving, but was standing immovably still, why would Joshua have commanded: Sun stand still? 

But Hollaz doesn't just base his answer on Scripture; he also explicitly refutes Copernicus' view. He illuminates the “antithesis” of some astronomers, among whom N. Copernicus stands out, who determine that the Sun is resting and the Earth is moving. This is based on the following evidence:

1. Every natural body is moved; also the Earth. Answer: I deny the antecedent because the movement and rest is a different effect of the natural body, some of which are moved and some of which are at rest.

2. The Earth is made to move, so it is likely to move. The proposition is thus proven: 1. the Earth is round; 2. it has air around it; 3. It is in one place, therefore it has a local movement. — I answer: 1. If something is moved because it is round, the Sun must also move. 2. One must judge the movement of a body not according to the surrounding air, but according to the divine decree. Because God has commanded that the Earth be fixed, it is immobile. 3. A stone is also in one place and is not moved.

3. The Earth is rich in magnetic fibers, so it moves around the poles by which the magnet turns. — I answer: 1. We doubt the presence of the magnetic fibers. 2. (If there were any) we doubt whether the strength of the magnetic fibers is so great that they can turn the heavy and dense body of the Earth towards the poles. — Everything that is said about the magnetic fibers is uncertain.

4. What is moved from place to place is truly and really moved. Now, as Job 9:6 testifies [“Which shaketh the earth out of her place”], the Earth is moved, consequently the Earth is in motion. — I answer: You have to distinguish between a natural, orderly and general movement, and a huge, extraordinary and special one. Job speaks of a tremendous and extraordinary movement, which is excited by God's wrath.

5. If the whole sky is moved with the stars, it follows that the stars around the equator travel 876 German miles in a second or during a [page 109] pulse beat according to Tycho's calculation, which is unlikely. But when the Earth moves from west to east, it partially meets the movement of the sky; only goes 225 German miles in an hour, and 250 paces in a pulse, which is far more likely. — I answer: If the Scriptures clearly testify that the Sun is moving, then the rapid movement of the Sun must be taken as evidence of the divine power and wisdom! How in a flash the rays of the Sun pour out! How quickly lightning and wind are moved! Who can measure such agile movement?”

So far Hollaz. From what he cites, one can clearly see what evidence the Copernicans gave in his day to substantiate their opinion, and how weak they are in relation to the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and even to common sense. It is impossible that a person who considers Scripture to be God's Word could be persuaded by such reasons to hold true an assertion that contradicts both the Bible and observation. [Lindemann speaks!]

= = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 6  = = = = = = = = = =
Psalm 19:4-6
      For the many theologians who have succumbed to Copernicanism, they must interpret Psalm 19:4-6  in an accommodating way, in a non-Messianic way.  But how comforting this passage is for those who believe their Bible, just as it reads, in a "biblicistic" way.

Kepler vs Tycho
      Although some of Hollaz's points may be questioned in the light of today's science, yet the testimony of Tycho Brahe is not so easy to dismiss.  Even among Copernican scientists, the name of Tycho is still held high – surely an embarrassment to the "Scientific" community which holds Kepler, Tycho's pupil, higher than his teacher. Is that because Kepler's "science" is better than Tycho's or is it because Tycho held Holy Scripture higher than Kepler? — In the next Part 6, "Lindemann's List" grows longer…