M06: Ratzeburger “hits truth”; Scott Keith: Bente's “poorly” covered history

      This continues from Part 5 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — Walther is not only pointing out Melanchthon's errors, his major theme is that this “remained completely unknown to Luther”. That is a difficult thesis to defend, and Walther is the most qualified to present the case. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 327-9 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 6 of 28  - - - - - - -

On October 13, 1537, when a day had already been set on which Melanchthon was to be reproached for suspecting that he held false doctrines, he wrote to the same Dietrich: 

“Today I have collected a small supply for my defense. I will tell you why I thought I had to explain some things in the dogmas more precisely in order to eliminate ambiguities and improper ways of speaking (άχυρολογίας), which have many dangers. I will show which dark parts (LuW 328) have created such improper ways of speaking; I will also say why I thought I had to moderate some of them. I will add the goals I have set myself, not to be the author of a new sect, or to appear to be fighting a mirror-image against Luther, but to achieve these two things: that there might be a Christian doctrine that was actually and simply presented for the benefit of youth, and that I might promote the study of other sciences. . I will also apologize that my views have been more moderate in public deliberations. For I have never tyrannically defended my opinion, but have rather followed what the princes have decided by common council, as in an aristocracy.… Know, then, that I am ready to answer with full equanimity. For perhaps an open discussion will be the best way to lift the whole offense.” (op. cit. p. 429) 

When in the year before Cordatus had attacked Melanchthon on account of the latter's naming of good works as the causa sine qua non, Melanchthon declared in a letter [of Nov. 1, 1536] addressed from Nuremberg to Luther, Jonas and Cruciger together: 

“I have never wanted to teach anything else, especially with regard to this point of contention, nor have I taught anything other than what you teach together.… My writings are here. Nor do I flee your judgment, not even [Nicholas] Amsdorf's. Nor have I ever thought of anything other than to explain as accurately as possible what your doctrines teach, because I knew that many of such important things have perverse opinions. Young people also need a suitable way of teaching doctrines, sometimes in dialectical words.… I also ask you for Christ's sake to make sure that I 'taught' what I taught with good zeal and not in the knowledge (animo) of disagreement with you. I have never wished to separate my opinion from your own; rather, when I am incriminated by the suspicions and slander of certain men, and alienation of minds is to be feared, I would rather go away somewhere.… I do not presume to presume anything and I have nothing new to publish but my opinion. I collected yours and explained it as simply as I could." (op. cit. p. 180 [StL 21b, 2117]) 

He also wrote to Camerarius in the same year concerning this dispute: 

“They have circulated letters” (of Cordatus) “in which it was written that I would not return because I disagree with Luther and the others. This idle talk of the people is ridiculous to me; but there are those here who have stirred up these fables, who thereby sufficiently place their folly or the weakness of their will on display. Nothing is reproached to me but that I am said of myself that I praise good works too much.  This is because, by actually and precisely declaring and methodically presenting these points of contention, I am talking about some things less offensively (minus horride) than they do.” (p. 193) 

Still on October 21, 1545, he writes (LuW 329) to Buchholzer: 

“I do not know where the so great hatred against me in some old friends comes from, since they themselves know that no new dogma of mine has been brought forth and that in some matters the true and actual explanation has been sought with considerable diligence.” ([CR 7,] p. 872) 

In addition to Melanchthon's repeated assurances that he was in agreement with Luther in his doctrines, there is now also the fact that much of what Melanchthon said and wrote was questionable, and that it remained completely unknown to Luther. That Melanchthon, for example, had written an "Apologia de conciliatione", defense of a compromise, Luther learned with astonishment only through a letter from Venice [WABr 10, 201-206, text here; English translation here.]. (Luther's Letters, de Wette. V, 568 [StL 21b, 2807; Luther’s answer: StL 21b 2876-2877]) [Matthäius] Ratzeberger also writes: 

“After this Colloquio (1536) and departures from Wittenberg, not only Bucer, but also the other theologians from Upper Austria, Switzerland and Zurich would write a lot to Philip, likewise Philip now and then to the Zurich theologians, since Heinricus Bullinger had only recently succeeded in Zwinglio caeso [beat Zwingli]. Luther did not know the slightest thing about this secret writing back and forth, and it remained hidden for a long time that Luther did not learn anything about it.” (Ratzeberger's handwritten history of Luther and his time, edited by Neudecker. Jena 1850, p. 85) 

Ratzeberger tells further below, 

“So now Philip, as reported, could hide his dissensum a doctrina Lutheri de sacrosancta coena [dissent from Luther's doctrine of the sacrosanct Lord’s Supper], so that he didn't let it be heard or noted in the slightest, and almost nobody among the Studiosis [students] could notice it, except only his secret and trusted friends, as Vitus Winshemius, Mag. Marcellus et pauci alii [and a few others], and so his secret remained affectus Luthero adhuc vivente [while Luther still lived] or more remained hidden and hushed up.” (p. 95) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 7  - - - - - - - - - -

On Ratzeburger, the Deutsche Biographie testified (translated): “It was then seen that Ratzeburger, even if he was somewhat pessimistic in his views of the times and people [?], and sometimes bitter and severe in his judgments [?], nevertheless generally hit the truth.” The witness of Ratzeberger gives Walther's thesis of Luther's ignorance of Melanchthon's errors great weight. A thorough Internet search for his image was fruitless. — In the next Part 7… 

- - - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Historians: Dr. Scott Keith   - - - - - - - - -

       Dr. Scott Keith is an Adjunct Professor of Theology at Concordia University, Irvine, California, and the Executive Director of the "1517 Legacy Project", now "1517.". By the naming of his organization, he means to promote the idea that they are the source for the history of the Reformation most commonly acknowledged as beginning in the year 1517. 

      What does Dr. Keith say about Bente's Historical Introductions?… about the history of Philip Melanchthon?  We heard in Part 5 that he, along with Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, were students of Dr. Lowell Green.  His "1517 Publishing" has re-published, in a new edition, Dr. Green's 1980 book How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel in 2021. In Dr. Keith's Preface he states:

"[Bente's] work covers a goodly deal of Melanchthon history and theology, but poorly.

It is apparent that Dr. Keith follows Dr. Green in his assessment of Bente's, and Walther's, history of Melanchthon. And he confirms his judgment of Bente in his podcast of May 19, 2017 (~08:15-08:50):

"There's a very good new historical introduction to the Book of Concord done by, Robert Kolb, Jim Nestingen, and Charles Arand [The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of The Book of Concord, Fortress, 2012], which I would highly recommend that people use instead of Bente."

Dr. Keith expresses here what is surely the prevailing opinion and teaching in the classrooms of the LC-MS. Not only is Bente criticized, but Keith again expresses publicly what is surely taught today in LC-MS schools and seminaries: Dr. Robert Kolb instead of Prof. F. Bente. This is surely the intention of the Fortress Press authors, although not expressly stated in this 2012 book. More specific charges by Dr. Keith from this podcast will be brought to light in future posts. 

     It appears that the aim of Dr. Lowell Green to steer the LC-MS completely away from Missourian theology to that of modernist German theology, is now fully realized… or are there still some who want to stay true to the theology of Old Missouri? We present a surprising example later in Part 9.

M05: M.'s errors not overlooked; L.'s "guileless, faithful heart"; Rosenbladt's "black hat" charge against Bente

[2023-05-01: added item on Bente quotes]

      This continues from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — In this segment, Walther makes a striking assertion about Luther's "guileless, faithful heart" in relation to what he believed of Melanchthon. Then he gives solid evidence of this.  Now you can read all of this… in English. Check Walther's sources, NSR: No Scholar Required. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 326-7:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 5 of 28  - - - - - - -

We do not deny that, if the same symptoms that appeared in Melanchthon had appeared in another personality, Luther would not only have been filled with grave suspicion against the latter, but would have intervened with greater seriousness.  But it was not the case that Luther overlooked a false doctrine in Melanchthon, which he would have punished and condemned in another, but rather that Luther's guileless, faithful heart could not believe capable his so often tested dear Melanchthon to be so unfaithful to God and man. So Luther was able to write to the pastors in Eperies, Hungary, on April 21, 1544 (before the publication of his “Brief Confession” of the same year): 

“What you write of Matthias Dévay” [DE] (who had been in Wittenberg) "amazes me very much, because he has such a good rumor with us that I myself can hardly believe it, even if you write it immediately” (that he had joined the Sacramentarians). “But be it as it may, he certainly did not receive the Sacramentarian doctrines from us.  Here we are constantly fencing against it, publicly and especially, and there is not the slightest sign or sight of the abomination in our midst, unless the devil has mumbled about it in some reasonable corner. Stand firm, therefore, and be assured that where God does not take away all the wit from me” (Latin: "Nisi me Deus furiosum fieri permittat"), “I will never again have the same opinion as the enemies of the Sacraments, or that such abominations will be heard in the Church entrusted to me. Or if I, God willing, would do otherwise, you may confidently say that I am great or damned. It is the devil who, knowing that I am publicly insurmountable, as so many of my books testify, wants to defile me by secretly whispering serpents as much as he can in corners and mischaracterize the Word of truth under my name.  After so many of my confessions I must therefore, if I want to do so with Marriage, issue a new one. Of Master Philipp I think nothing bad at all” (“De M. Philippus mihi nulla estomnino suspicio”), “not even by any of us. (LuW 327) Because, as I said, Satan must not be bothered by this in public.” (XXI, 1334. f. [StL 21b 2970-2971]) 

Luther places a similar testimony in a letter of November 12 of the same year [1544] towards Alterius in Italy.  He writes to Alterius: 

“So now do not be deceived, I beseech you in the Lord, neither by the Zurichers [Johann Heinrich] Bullinger, [Konrad] Pellican, nor by [Martin] Bucer himself, who is said to have written many things in Latin in the beginning of this sad trade (which I have not seen), but, as I am convinced, has long since come to terms with it. Yes, if you should perhaps hear that Philip, or Luther would have agreed with the raving of those people, do not believe it for God's sake.” (XVII, 2633 [StL 17, 2174]) 

Luther had written to the same Alterius earlier on June 13 [1543]: 

“Bucer stands by Melanchthon in the Cologne Church, which would not suffer and would not tolerate Philip if he (Bucer) was not considered pure (in doctrines). (Luther’s Letters, de Wette. V, 567 [StL 21b, 2875.]) 

It is a fact that Melanchthon himself said that he did not depart from Luther's doctrines in reality, he only softened what he thought were hard and harsh expressions to protect them from misunderstanding. Thus he wrote to Veit Dietrich on June 22, 1537, among other things: 

“However, I try with all diligence to preserve the unity of our academy, and you know that I also use some art in this. Luther does not seem to have a hostile attitude against us. Only yesterday he was discussing with me in the most loving way the points of contention which Quadratus (Cordatus) aroused when I discussed what a tragic spectacle it would be if we fought with each other like the Cadmean brothers themselves.… Otherwise, of course, I very much wish that the articles, in respect of which there seems to be a certain disparity, were clearly and usefully explained. You know that I speak of some things that are less repulsive (minus horride), of predestination, of the assent of the will, of the necessity of our obedience, of mortal sin. I know that of all these things Luther believes the same thing, but unlearned men love certain somewhat exaggerated (φορτιχώτερα) sayings of his, because they do not see where they belong, too much so. I do not want to argue with them either.  May they rejoice in their judgment. But allow me, the peripatetic [follower of Aristotle] and lover of the Middle Road (mediocritatis), to speak less stoically [without emotion] at times.” (Corp. Reform. III, 383) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 6  - - - - - - - - - -

One does not have to take Walther's judgment on these matters for one can read for themselves from Luther and Melanchthon in their own words. Luther did not believe Melanchthon was capable of being unfaithful, because Melanchthon gave him reason to believe this. This is critical in making sense of Luther's attitude toward him. (Prof. Bente also documents Melanchthon's public statements in his Chapter 199.)  Ah, but there will be a bump in the road ahead. — In the next Part 6…

- - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing Theologian, Historian: Dr. Rod Rosenbladt   - - - - - - - -

      Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, Professor (emeritus) of Theology at Concordia University, Irvine, California, said the following during the 1517./"The Thinking Fellows" podcast of May 19, 2017 @ 05:30-06:07 (emphasis in original):

"… he [Melanchthon] made some bad moves under political pressure., <great emphasis> terrible pressure that in case you're not clear about it, Bente's book on the historical background to the Historical Introduction to the Book of Concord. And as, as Lowell Green said one time, (Scott [Keith] and I were both in class) he [Bente] will <with emphasis> look for ways to criticize Melanchthon and he'll bring in <double emphasis> anything to put Melanchthon in a black hat."

"Black Hat"? "Anything"? Rosenbladt does not directly refute Bente's documented points, just as Prof. Marquart pointed out of Dr. Green in his attack (in Part 3). Dr. Rosenbladt only reveals that he is a follower of Dr. Lowell Green who openly criticized both Walther and Bente in their theology and history. But we saw in Parts 3 and 4 how many quotes Walther gives of Melanchthon's orthodoxy, of his good confessions. Bente does the same:

• p. 44: “With all its thoroughness and erudition the Apology [of Melanchthon] is truly edifying.”;
• p. 98: "In a criticism of the Augsburg Interim… Melanchthon declared…" [2023-05-01: added this item]
• p. 175: “originally Melanchthon fully shared Luther’s views on the Lord’s Supper. At Marburg, 1529, he was still violently opposed to the Zwinglians.” Bente takes 2 pages here to document Melanchthon's good testimonies on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

Are these praises of Melanchthon doing "anything" to put a "black hat" on Melanchthon? So Rosenbladt's statement is not true in view of the above examples, for Bente does as Walther does. And as even Rosenbladt admits here, it was Melanchthon who eventually put the "black hat" on himself, not Bente. And Bente is far from the first Lutheran historian to point out how Melanchthon put the "black hat" on himself. — Surely Dr. Rosenbladt would not make a theological "bad move" under "terrible political pressure".

M04: More good confessions; Green v. Bente on Supper

      This continues from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — Walther continues reporting Melanchthon's good confessions during the later years of Luther's life. The matters touched on are still highly contentious today, especially on the Lord's Supper. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 324-6: 

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 4 of 28  - - - - - - -

  

On February 13, 1538, he [Melanchthon] wrote to Dietrich: 

“I have spoken with Dr. Luther about the quarrel of the man who discusses with you that the symbols (the consecrated elements) should not be lifted up into the air.  But my advice is that, if he confesses that the body is really present, he must allow the elevation to be necessary. If he defends Zwingli's dogma, I believe you will not defend the man.” (p. 488) 

In 1541 Melanchthon wrote to the Goldberg Pastor J. Resting about the elevation at Holy Communion: 

“Many of us have abolished the same, we here keep it according to the old custom, and I think that you should not suddenly change this custom. Although many questions would be avoided by abolishing that custom, because the Body of Christ is given with the signs, that outward reverence cannot be condemned if one has the right understanding, and does not worship the sign, but recognizes that there is something else given besides the signs. At all times of the Church (LuW 325), congregations fall on their knees in the action of the mystery, as it is called. Therefore I do not see how you could abolish this custom; only that the people should be taught rightly. (Corp. Reform. IV, 735) 

Of other certain confessions of Melanchthon to Luther's teaching from this and the following years, Melanchthon still writes in 1543 in the preface to his Locis: 

“I accept the doctrine of the Wittenberg Church and the churches connected with it, which, apart from everything else, is the consensus of the catholic [universal] Church, i.e. of all those taught within the Church of Christ.  But Paul wants there to be judgments on doctrines in the Church, so that the truth may be preserved unadulterated and unity not rashly disturbed. I myself also recognize the meagerness and lack of stainlessness of my writings. Therefore, although I make a foolish effort to speak, it can happen, especially with the great mass of things and the great brevity, that sometimes something is expressed too darkly or not comfortably enough. Therefore I do not evade the judgments of our Churches, for I respect them for God's Church and venerate them with sincere reverence, nor will I separate myself from them and submit my words, writings and actions to their judgment”. (Loci praecip. th. Lips. 1552. Praef. A 2. s.) 

Finally, the following is very important. When the Swiss wanted to be admitted to the Smalcald League in 1545, the Elector of Saxony asked the Wittenberg theologians to express their reservations. The Wittenberg theologians issued one, and it is not only signed by Melanchthon, but also written by him. In it, however, after mentioning the political reasons which oppose the admission of the Zwinglian Swiss, it says among other things as follows: 

“This we let the gentlemen themselves, who by God's grace are gifted with a high intellect, consider.  But it is public that the Zurich Predicants write against our Church, and have several articles which are criminal.  Now we cannot respect, if we on both sides are arguing against each other with writings, that the hearts would be inclined to equal protection. On the other hand, they would understand and need this acceptance as strengthening and spreading their opinion. (Corp. Ref. V, 723) *)

——————

*) Bretschneider, the editor of the Corpus Reformatorum, says for easily understandable reasons: “I do not consider either Luther or Melanchthon to be the author of this reflection, but either Bugenhagen or Cruciger.” Assuming alone that Bretschneider was in the right, it remains certain that Melanchthon signed the reflection with his own hand and thus testified that he wanted to be seen together with Luther as an opponent of the Zwinglian life, as an erroneous and dangerous one. But there is more to this, that the Wittenberg theologians in the year 1597 in of their Refutatio historiae Peucerianae expressly testify: “The response given to the Elector on this question was written down by Philip himself, which is well worth noting, and is still present in the Saxon Archives at this time.” (Consil. Witebergens. Tom. I. f. 307) 

What could and should Luther (LuW 326) conclude from this other than that Melanchthon was also in agreement with him regarding the Swiss in doctrine? Even if it may not remain entirely hidden from Luther that Melanchthon was tormented by scruples and that his nature of aversion to disunity and conflict inclined him to achieve unity through less distinct formulas, even to compromise with his opponents, all this was enough for Luther, and rightly so, not, in view of those beautiful confessions of the pure doctrine of the Word of God, to take his dear Philip to be a man who is a conscious opponent of any article of pure doctrine and any dangerous false doctrine. 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 5  - - - - - - - - - -

Walther makes the clear case for why Luther still considered Melanchthon as his associate in theological matters. Philip clearly sounded just like Luther on the elevation of the host as an adiaphoron — an indifferent matter that should not necessarily be a point of contention. (This is the error of the so-called "Gottesdienst" organization.)  In the next Part 5…

- - - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Historians: Dr. Lowell Green   - - - - - - - - -

      In Part 3, we touched on Dr. Green's errors on Church & Ministry, and the Inspiration of Holy Scripture.  This time we highlight his error concerning the Lord's Supper. In 1977, he wrote a provocative chapter for the CPH book A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord  attempting to drive a wedge between Luther's so-called teaching on the timing of the Real Presence in Holy Communion.  In the process, he impugns Bente's Historical Introductions… for example, the following statement (p. 306, fn 7):

“Bente paid the price [!?] of his overhasty condemnations of Melanchthon, pp. 175—185. Supposing that reformer’s [Melanchthon’s] doctrine of the Lord’s Supper to consist in covert Calvinism, he [Bente] regarded the hallmark of Luther’s doctrine to be the phrase, ‘nothing has the character of a sacrament outside of the use,’… [True! See Luther's letter to Amsdorf Jan. 11, 1545 in StL 21b, 3180, and his writing in StL 21b, 3457-59 (WABr 12, #4315); see SD VII, 85] This prompted Bente to misinterpret Beatus [Johannes] Saliger, who was probably [probably? not certainly?] a true representative of Luther [False!], calling him [Saliger] an ‘extremist … who taught that in virtue of the consecration before the use (ante usum) bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.’ [p. 179] The term ante usum here evidently meant the time between the consecration and the manducation: Bente is espousing the Melanchthonian [?!] notion that the body is in, with, and under the bread only in the distribution and consumption [Which is the Formula of Concord’s doctrine!] (if, indeed, Melanchthon limited it to that extent), and calling the position of Luther and [False pairing of Luther with Saliger!] Saliger ‘extreme.’ Bente’s historical introduction has been very influential.”

Dr. Green uses provocative, "overhasty" terminology and methodology, the same as what Prof. Marquart uncovered in Green's doctrines of Church and Ministry (see Part 3). Luther's doctrine was definitely NOT the same as the erring Saliger. See the Wikipedia article on Johannes Saliger, Walther's Pastoral Theology, pp. 205 and 221, Pieper's CD III, p. 372) — Unfortunately Dr. Green did not stop with the three doctrines named so far, where he attacked Old Missouri, and has attracted a major following in the LC-MS even today. One could also suspect Pres. Matthew Harrison as a follower, along with Prof. John T. Pless (are you reading this, Logia?). Another of Dr. Green's deviations is planned to be revealed, the most devious.