M13: Walther summarizes M.'s ups & downs; Langebartels uses Bente

       This continues from Part 12 (or Excursus 1;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 now summarizes where he is at with his history of Melanchthon's theological travels.  If there ever was a winding road in Reformation history, this is it. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 337-338 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 13 of 28  - - - - - - -

So, on the one hand, we have seen that Melanchthon, from the year 1535 on, until Luther's death, was, however, at times tormented by doubts and wavered in his previous convictions, but on the other hand, that he, no less, until Luther's death, on the most diverse occasions, publicly confessed Luther's doctrines without reservation, and that, therefore, Luther, until his death (with short interruptions), expected the best of Melanchthon's faith and teachings, and that Melanchthon himself continuously expressed the conviction that he was not at all aiming to bring up new dogmas and to correct Luther, (LuW 338), but that his intention was to present the existing doctrine only for the benefit and piety of the young students, without all paradoxical and therefore misunderstandable expressions, actually, clearly and in a method convenient for teaching. Of course, we have also seen that Melanchthon, behind Luther's back, complained bitterly about Luther, especially about Luther's fiery zeal against all false doctrine, or rather against false sacramental doctrine, even to the sacramentarians; indeed, in order to establish an external peace, he not infrequently resorted to ambiguous words and formulas and sometimes showed himself willing to make the most dangerous concessions to the opponents themselves; but until Luther's death he never publicly declared himself either against Luther's doctrines or for the doctrines of his opponents. 

Taken together, this casts a very bad light on Melanchthon and his behavior in the time since which the first scruples concerning Luther's doctrines may have arisen in him, until Luther's death.  But far from it appearing that Luther carried Melanchthon as a false teacher who was seen through by him, it only falls on Melanchthon the appearance that he, if he had really inwardly apostatized from the truth, knew how to maintain in Luther the good opinion that he still stood with him in full doctrinal unity. We must not forget two things here, firstly, what is now, after all documents have been brought to light, as clear as daylight, mostly hidden from Luther and hardly suspected by him; secondly, that Melanchthon, as a result of his unmeasured love of peace, accommodated himself not only to the Swiss but also to Luther in every possible way, therefore Luther did not carry him as a false teacher, but recognized him bona fide as a weak, slightly wavering, but nevertheless pure teacher.  

Therefore, Löscher rightly calls Hospinian's and other Reformed accounts of the matter, as if Luther had known of Melanchthon's apostasy, but had indulged him in it, "novelistic" [einen Roman, i.e. imaginary]. (Hist. mot. II, 34)  

Our opponents will now admittedly say that it is unthinkable that Luther should not have noticed anything of the deviations of which Melanchthon was notoriously guilty in his doctrines even during Luther's lifetime. [And a concern of mine.] However, as little as this can be denied by anyone familiar with the history of the Reformation, it is also an undeniable fact that Luther, far from simply overlooking it and carrying it of Melanchthon, whenever he noticed something of it, rather immediately took action against it. 

(Conclusion follows)

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 14  - - - - - - - - - -

      Walther, by his reporting on Melanchthon's theological problems, seems to find himself in a pit that he cannot dig his way out of.  How can he explain why Luther did not see and respond more forcefully to Melanchthon's theological problems? How is he going to explain why Luther did not notice these problems?  Find out, in the second half of his essay, beginning in the next Part 14…  — Before that we present another orthodox Lutheran testimony of Melanchthon's errors, in the next Excursus 2.

- - - - - - - -   WELS scholar/theologian, Dr. James Langebartels:   - - - - - - - - -

      Along with Paul McCain's praise of Bente's history (see Part 9), it was also a pleasant surprise to read from a current WELS pastor/theologian who not only does not criticize Bente, but uses his historical writings.  Prof. emeritus (now Pastor) James L. Langebartels references Bente's writings eight times in his "Introduction", and elsewhere, to his translation of the Apology of the Book of Concord (CPH 2018). In the following, he shows Bente's good judgment on the importance of this book:

Friedrich Bente wrote about this Apology:

Alongside the Formula of Concord, there is no other book of that period in which the pure doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, the person of Christ, and original sin, along with related doctrines, is presented so clearly and convincingly and defended against the objections of the false teachers. (Friedrich Bente, “Die Apologie der Concordienformel,” Lehre und Wehre 48 (1902): 229)

Pastor Langebartels not only translated the first part of this Apology, he has completed the series with 3 more volumes—Parts 2-4.  For some strange reason, CPH did not publish these later volumes, so Langebartels had to self publish them with Lulu.com and they are now also available on Amazon.  These are serious books of Lutheran Church history and so Rev. Robert Mayes' glowing review for CPH's Part 1 would also apply to the remaining Parts. — It is unfortunate that Langebartels, in his historical introduction, mixes his references to Bente with those of Drs. Irene Dingel and Johannes Hund, two German theologian/historians associated with non-Lutheran church bodies. Surely these are in deference to Dr. Robert Kolb, a technical advisor on this book. Nevertheless, Dr. Langebartels at least does not ignore or criticize Bente's history. — More will be said of another translated work of Dr. Langebartels in Part 16 and Excursus 3.

Excursus 1: Chemnitz on M.s errors: Philippism, “horrible heresies”

       This continues from Part 12 (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.” — This first "Excursus" brings testimony against Philip Melanchthon from a source that few, if any, LC-MS historians report: Martin Chemnitz, sometimes referred to as the "Second Martin". The following testimonies are admittedly well after Luther's death, but they show the result of Melanchthon's wavering theology from the period even during Luther's life:

      A. The first report I discovered came from the recent translation by James Langebartels of the Apology of the Book of Concord (CPH 2018), a book in part authored by Chemnitz:  

370: "Now even though Melanchthon changed his confession and doctrine in this article [Lord's Supper] and went over to them [Zwingians]…"

371:  opponents "candidly write that Luther, even though he [Luther] knew that Philip forcibly disagreed with him on both articles of the person of Christ and the holy Supper, nevertheless commended his Christianity, recognized him as a pure teacher, and did not allow him to be separated from him." [i.e. "carried" or "tolerated" him]

371: Philip's Corpus doctrinae "was deficient in the doctrines of free will, of the description of the Gospel, of good works, of the Lord’s Supper, and others." [NOW who is the one putting the "black hat" (see Part 5) on Melanchthon? Martin Chemnitz, The Second Martin!]

371: "As far as Philip’s Corpus doctrinae is concerned, it is undeniably true that it was never approved and accepted by all the estates of the Augsburg Confession, as they [Philipists] falsely write. There were always some, and not a few, who not only did not accept and embrace it but also contradicted it in certain points in public print and otherwise."

371: That is why the preface of the Book of Concord [Triglotta p. 27] points out for all of Christendom that Philip’s writings, as far as they agree with the norm of the Formula of Concord, are not to be rejected or condemned. It is sufficiently understood from those words that defects were found in his writings, which must be condemned according to the norm of Holy Scripture. The author of Apology of the Book of Concord speaks on the BoC’s "Preface"'s meaning – that it was irenically, actually, warning people to be on guard with Melanchthon’s writings. 

371: “That is why the preface of the Book of Concord points out for all of Christendom that Philip’s writings, as far as they agree with the norm of the Formula of Concord, are not to be rejected or condemned. It is sufficiently understood from those words that defects were found in his writings, which must be condemned according to the norm of Holy Scripture.” [See also Kolb-Wengert BoC p. 11 fn 25: “The final clause was added at the insistence of the Lower Saxon cities, the Pomeranians, and the theologians of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, who wanted an endorsement of the works of Melanchthon and others but only as they conformed to the Formula or to the works of Luther.” Again, who is putting a “black hat” on Melanchthon?]

372: "But Philip—which unfortu­nately is obvious and cannot be denied—especially after Luther’s death, tore himself away from him in the doctrine of free will." 

373: "But there he [Luther] is not speaking about the Loci [of Melanchthon] which was later altered in a dangerous way, especially after Luther’s death." (See Bente, p. 226 f.; see also p. 448; Kolb, History and Theology, p. 280, speak of this Apology, but leave out Chemnitz's charges against Melanchthon's errors, leaving a gaping hole in their history.)

     B.  The other source of Chemnitz's testimony comes from a later essay by Walther dealing with the Election Controversy.  Most of this forceful essay defended against the use of human writings along with Holy Scripture as the source and norm of doctrine.  The use of human writings among the Evangelicals of the 16th Century was made by the Philippists, as also Bente (p. 105 or here) reported of Melanchthon. And because Walther's opponents at times appealed to Philip Melanchthon for their errors, he was forced to call out these errors.  Walther only had to quote Martin Chemnitz for this purpose. From the 1882 "Foreword" to Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (March 1882) p. 99-103 footnote:

“But after Luther's death, our church was to receive an ever more urgent call to renounce once and for all the practice of not relying solely on God's clear written Word to prove the truth of a doctrine, but to regard the sayings of human teachers, whether old or new, no matter how pious, as doctrinal decisions and to bind the consciences to them. Our church received this call through the so-called Philippism. As is well known, after Luther's death, Philip Melanchthon became so highly regarded in our church that even righteous men were held back in their knowledge and confession of the truth, and dishonest spirits, under the aegis of the Magister Germaniae, tried to smuggle horrible heresies [Ketzereien] into our church, pretending that these doctrines were doctrines of our Confessions, as the writings of their main author, the great Melanchthon, irrefutably show. *)

_________________

*) Let us here follow a twofold index of the errors that can be found in Melanchthon's later writings. When in 1579 a doctrinal dispute had broken out among the members of the ministry of Halle, caused by Philippists, the city council asked Martin Chemnitz for mediation to settle it, the result of which was a “contract” drawn up by Chemnitz, in which it says, among other things, as follows: 

“Secondly, with regard to the writings of Master Philip, because they contain a beautiful method and many good useful explanations, it should be held that these (as the Formula of Concord also says of these and other useful writings), insofar as they conform to the norm of doctrine [i.e. Holy Scripture], are not rejected and condemned; but the norm of doctrine they cannot be. For what is in the Locus [of Melanchthon] of 

[1] free will for incorrectness and deficiency can be rejected as clear as day (ad oculum). 

[2] The Locus on Holy Communion <page 100> is not properly and clearly explained, 

[a] whether one should remain with the words of institution, as they are, without tropes and figures; 

[b] again, what we received with our mouths in the Lord's Supper; 

[c] also of the enjoyment of the unworthy is not explained, but in the exposition of 1 Corinthians a metonymy is put in the words of the Lord's Supper, as the fasces [axe] is the kingdom; 

[d] also in Malachi's explanation towards the end, the rule regarding usage is thus set: ‘The taking actually contains the nature (rationem) of a sacrament in those who take it with faith’; 

[e] as also the sayings of the ancients about the Lord's Supper, once collected and edited by Philip, have been deliberately excluded from his works. 

[3] Thus also is conscious what is stated concerning Colossians 3 in the article of Christ's ascension and of His sitting at the right hand of God concerning the physical taking of place (locatio), and how the promises of Christ's presence in the church are referred to the divine nature alone. Indeed, it is also the doctrine of the communication of majesty in Philip Melanchthon's writings is not sufficiently different and correctly explained. And because such points in Philip Melanchthon's writings do not agree with Dr. Luther's doctrine, as he has led and argued from and according to God's Word, therefore they cannot be considered a standard, but should be subjected to the specified standard and read with such a judgment as in the Formula of Concord the disputed articles are explained, and should not be drawn, used, or led against it." (Fortgeschichte Sammlung von alten und neuen theologie Sachen auf das Jahr 1743. p. 32 f.)

Thus wrote one Chemnitz, who himself had been a student and great admirer of Melanchthon and had lectured on his Loci!”

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

Chemnitz wasn't the only theologian to enumerate Melanchthon's errors. Walther continues his lengthy footnote with quotes from an extensive listing by a 17th Century Lutheran theologian… in our next Excursus 2. But before that, Part 13. (In Part 20, we will see how modernist Lutheran historians attempt to refute Chemnitz.)

M12: Quenstedt & Calvin tell the truth about M.; do Dingel & Kolb on Melanchthon & Leipzig Interim?

[2024-07-19: added another quote of Dr. Kolb on the Leipzig Interim; 2023-06-18: added note on Dr. Dingel below in red text.]

       This continues from Part 11 (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 now brings out the unsettling ambiguity in Melanchthon's writings after the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, and Luther's corrective counsel to him. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 336-337 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 12 of 28  - - - - - - -

As early as 1530, Melanchthon, as we have already seen, was guilty of using ambiguity to establish peace. [See above Part 8, p. 332 ff. above, Baumgartner] Among other things, he himself wrote to Luther on August 22: “Eck sneered at the word 'alone' [sola], if we say that men are justified by faith alone; but he did not condemn the matter, saying it was offensive to the ignorant. For I forced him to confess that righteousness is rightly attributed by us to faith.  He (LuW 337) wanted us to write: that we are justified by grace and faith; I did not resist, [“non repugnavi”] but that foolish man does not understand the word ‘grace’.” (II, 299. f.  [StL 16, 1401-1402, #1057]) To this news of the foul peace Luther answered him: "You write that Eck was compelled by you to confess that we are justified by faith; would to God, you would have compelled him not to lie. (Luther’s Letters, de Wette. IV, 145; [StL 16, 1402 #1676; not in old  series Am. Ed.]) *) 

——————                                                                                 

*) [Johannes] Quenstedt writes: "When, after the delivery of the Augsburg Confession at the Imperial Diet of 1530, a settlement of the points of contention between the princes and theologians of both parts was negotiated from August 16 to 22, it pleased Melanchthon to leave that word 'grace' in its ambiguity, that he and his comrades could take and interpret it for the mere affect of divine benevolence, but Eck and his comrades, as usual with them, for virtuous qualities, which were poured into men by the benevolence of God, as the principal cause; which meaning does not prevent man from obtaining salvation through merit, as the secondary cause, which would be infused into him by God out of his good will, as the primary cause. In such ambiguities Philip was extremely pleased, as can be seen from his letter of August 22. But Luther disliked this ‘wickedness’ (Ephes. 4:14) from the beginning; hence he wrote a reply to Melanchthon on August 25th.”. (Theol. did.-pol. II, 770)  

In 1539 Calvin wrote to Farell: 

“I sent him (Melanchthon) a few articles in which I had briefly summed up the sum of the matter.  He himself agrees with these without contradiction, but he admits that in that part there were some who demanded something more crass, and with such rigidity that I do not say, tyranny, that for a long time it was to be feared that they saw him alienated from their opinion. Though he does not think that there is a friendly agreement, he wishes that this unity, whatever it may be, be cultivated until the Lord will have led us on both sides to unity in His truth. As for himself, have no doubt that he believes as we do.” (Calvin. epp. p. 24) 

The consequence of his dissimulation towards his opponents was, then, that they took him completely for their side, far from it, that he, as he undoubtedly intended, at least at that time, to have brought them closer to the truth through the same. [i.e. opponents misread M. at that time]

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 13  - - - - - - - - - -

The time in 1530 at which Luther had to warn Melanchthon about his ambiguity in the meaning of the word "grace" is critical in understanding Reformation history. — In the next blog post we present Excursus 1 on the testimony of Martin Chemnitz pertinent to Walther's points about Melanchthon.  Then in Part 13…

- - - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Drs. Dingel & Kolb:   - - - - - - - - -

      In the preceding Part 11, we saw indisputable testimony of the differing natures of Melanchthon and Luther.  But what about their doctrine?  What do modern historians conclude about Melanchthon's theology? Dr. Irene Dingel, is a frequent associate of Dr. Robert Kolb in church historical literature.  She judged, in her 2008 essay "Culture of Controversy" in editor Kolb's book Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 1550-1675, (p. 22, emphasis mine): 

"In contrast to the Augsburg Interim, this Leipzig “alternative” [i.e. Leipzig Interim] preserved evangelical doctrine but reflected some medieval Catholic practices in ceremony and custom." 

Dr. Dingel makes no mention of the actual wording on Justification, and it's ambiguity, in the Leipzig Interim, and only gives her opinion that it "preserved evangelical doctrine". That is not church history, but her opinion. We saw above that Melanchthon even exhibited this same ambiguity 18 years earlier in 1530. (Dingel also makes no mention of Melanchthon's letter to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548.) [2023-06-18: Dr. Dingel made the same erroneous judgment in her essay "Melanchthon and the Establishment of Confessional Norms" in the 2012 book Philip Melanchthon: Theologian in Classroom, Confession, and Controversy., p. 163: "…the article on justification which Melanchthon had drawn up in the 'Leipzig Interim' preserved Evangelical teaching."]

      Dr. Robert Kolb, in his 2001 book Sources and Contexts, stated the following on the "Leipzig Interim" p. 183: 

“However, the statement of the final draft regarding justification, … contained ambiguous language regarding the doctrine [of Justification]. In fact, parts of it had been borrowed directly from the Augsburg Interim.”

[2024-07-19:] Then in his Kolb/Wengert version of the Book of Concord (p. 563), he said the following about the reference to the "Interim" in Article III of the Formula of Concord:

“Although the Augsburg Interim, with its doctrine of double justification, is probably meant here, the “Leipzig Interim’s" article on justification had been fiercely attacked by the Gnesio-Lutherans for its formulations that seemed to compromise the Lutheran understanding of salva­tion 'by grace alone' and 'through faith alone.'”

Kolb's reporting differs from that of his associate Dr. Dingel who makes no mention of the "ambiguous language". (Why does Dr. Kolb join his histories with Dr. Dingel's?) But even Kolb avoids spelling out the actual "ambiguous language" (Sources and Contexts, p. 185): “the merciful God draws… (men) in such a manner that their will cooperates, if they are of the age of reason.” That  "ambiguous language" fits well with the papist teaching, if not outright Synergism. — But even Dr. Kolb's weak defense of the doctrine of Justification, if one can call it that, overturns the judgment of Dr. Dingel's non-defense at this critical point, a point of "terrible pressure" according to Dr. Rosenbladt. (Where now is Kolb's claim of "much greater precision"?) This disqualifies Dingel, (perhaps even Kolb) as a truly Lutheran theologian, not to mention that she has no Scriptural basis (jure divino) for her teaching position in the Church as a woman. [1 Tim. 2:12, blog post here] — And what about Dr. Kolb, who in his "objectivity" makes himself suspect in this matter, for in his own 2005 Bound Choice book, he speaks of the "Leipzig Interim" (p. 106) as the "effort to present an official Saxon policy that seemed to comply with the catholicizing Augsburg Interim, such words appeared to be a perfidious betrayal." The same was true in his 2012 History where he avoids stating this unequivocally, only saying (p. 178) that "this doctrine was ambiguously stated according to its critics". Is he a critic of the "ambiguous" language in the "Leipzig Interim" or not, i.e. is he Lutheran or not? (It seems he has put his Lutheran "bias" too far onto the shelf.)

      Dr. Kolb strangely never mentions the name of Carlowitz (see Part 11) in all his chief books in recent decades, but he did mention it in an October 1997 Concordia Journal article on Melanchthon, p. 310: 

"To be a colleague of Luther's was, of course, not an easy task. It was like being harnessed to a dynamo. Melanchthon himself complained about living under the burden of servitude to Luther. (fn#7: In a letter to Christoph von Carlowitz, 28.4.1548, Corpus Reformatorum, VI:880)"  

Even though Kolb did not use a pejorative term in 1997 against Luther, he came close, giving no rebuttal to Melanchthon's complaint. (He did call Luther "overheated, overblown, harsh, and petulant" in 2012, p. 155; [2023-05-15: Löscher's judgment is the opposite of Dr. Kolb - see Part 11]) Why did Kolb not mention this "servitude" letter to Carlowitz in his subsequent history books? Why did he not point out how this letter gave aid to the opponents of true Lutheranism? Is he justifying Melanchthon's charge against Luther? Was he seeking favor with today's Melanchthon defenders? (Maybe Kolb does not want to be "harnessed to a dynamo.") And this report is hardly an improvement over Dr. Green's omission of Carlowitz's name because the significance of Carlowitz is that he was an opponent of the expelled Elector John Frederick, and a follower of Erasmus, an opponent of Luther. Melanchthon was complaining of his dissatisfaction with Luther not to friends of true Lutheranism, but to a foe.  Why do all these modern theologians avoid reporting about this if it is not embarrassing for their defense of the legacy of Melanchthon?… or not embarrassing for their so-called "objectivity"?

      The true church historian in this matter was not Drs. Green, or Kolb, or Dingel, but Prof. F. Bente who reported (p. 99 or here) of the Leipzig Interim that "Even the Lutheran sola (sola fide, by faith alone) is omitted in the article of justification." — We will cover the doctrine of Justification in more detail in a future post. But we reinforce Bente's (and Walther's) history of Melanchthon with a refreshingly clear testimony from Martin Chemnitz in Excursus 1.