Missourian! 6: Avid German response to America… and a mediator; Germany today?

      This continues from Part 5 and concludes the series "Missourian!" (Table of Contents in Part 1) — Walther's stirring 1872 series on the label "Missourian" sparked an enthusiastic response from Germany.  It was written by a contributor to one of the church newspapers that was less inclined to go along with the rationalism and unionism in that country.  He was "Licentiate" K. Stroebel, carrying a title that followed the ecclesiastical system in Germany at that time.  Stroebel has been quoted before on this blog regarding science and religion, but his short essay here calls out to his German countrymen to open their eyes to the pure Lutheranism growing in the New World.  But an editor of the journal, H.F.A. Guericke, could not leave Stroebel's fervent remarks for the "Missourians" without a mediating note.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Stroebel’s original review in Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche vol. 34 (1873), p. 688-690 here (DigiZeitschriften.de) and here (Google Books). Translation by BTL.

Miscellaneous.

[by Licentiate K. Stroebel]

I. “Galileans!” “Nazarene!” “Athanasians!” “Lutherans!” “Missourians!” What a content-rich, fruitful topic is tied to these names of abuse and honour! Recently Prof. Walther of St. Louis treated it in detail in a foreword to Der Lutheraner (No. 1. and 2., 1. and 15. October 1 and 15, 1872), and we may draw attention to the statements in question, because in any case they are respectable. If the “Missourians” have recently been turned into an odious keyword and cover, the last reason for this is by no means to be found in any particular peculiarity, but rather in something worthy of praise. … [[Stroebel quotes Walther’s entire final footnote on p. 10, column 3, see Part 5]] … The Missourians at least know with reliable precision what the fight against atheism, papism and unionism are about and what they are not about. This is already attested by the other contents of those two Foreword numbers: we mean especially the report about "the free, i.e. unbelieving, and God-denying congregation in Milwaukee”, — then the “Submission on Father Brockhagen's Schutt und Gerölle”, etc. — But above all this is attested by the careful and essentially ironic presentation about “the United-Evangelical Synod of the West” [see United Church of Christ article here] and the pastor belonging to it. Riedel, a gifted, serious and sincere man, who in his recent synodical sermon (characteristically titled: “Silent Voices of Ezekiel's Bone Field, A Sermon on Ezek. 37:1-14” Louisville, Ky. 1872), rolls out an unflattering picture of the real, American as well as European, state of the Union: in both parts of the world, the union does not appear as a Christian community ruled by the Holy Spirit and living faith, but as a vast field full of dead bones over which no breath of God blows. The accusers of the Missouri Synod could well learn a few things from this synodical sermon.  Most painfully Pastor Riedel misses in the doctrine and life of the entire Union that which the Missourian church possesses and on which it conclusively places the decisive accent. — But would she, out of blind devotion to her galvanized hobbyhorses, be disintegrated?… yet with true confessing fellow believers? — Well, think about it and say what you will; but — where there has been so far a breach between the Missourians and other Lutherans, it has acted in a far higher degree than the “Missourian” quirks.1)    Stroebel.

———————

footnote by
editor Guericke

1) Although the undersigned, as far as he is aware, essentially agrees with the writer of the above in full recognition of the Lutheran Missourians, he cannot identify the Missouri Synod and pure Lutheranism (as little as on the other side for instance also the latter and the Leipzig Allgemeine ev.-lutherische Kirchenzeitung) [ref. C.E. Luthardt]. Anyone who, with regard to the actual driving forces in the church struggles of the present time and their travail, has been struck with blindness in order to reconcile with the Missourians (in Der Lutheraner of 15 Dec. 15, 1872, page 45 [Archive here, German text; Walther against Germans mediating with Pope & Jesuits]) that the "Berliner Neue Evangel. Kirchenzeitung" judgment of “quite right”, i.e. absolute  condemnation, of the actual core of v. Gerlach's writing Kaiser und Papst (Emperor and Pope), which in this point (as little as for instance the Leipziger Kirchenzeitung, when it 1873 No. 2 pp. 19 by citing Gury's moral (as countless other authors would then not have to be banished from the German borders with 100fold rights!] justified the expulsion of the Jesuits, etc.) hardly addresses the fame of the simple clear Lutheran eye. Whether a fighter “dulled by the questions of time” can be found on this or that side should not be as easy to decide as one might think.. G. [Guericke, H. E. F. (editor)]

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

      Although editor Prof. Guericke was considered a conservative Lutheran in Germany, yet a tone of apathy shows through his footnote to Stroebel's forthright judgment of true Lutheranism.  Guericke did not like Walther's strong stand against a spirit in Germany that would mediate with the Pope and the Jesuits, sworn enemies of the Gospel.

Germany today; America?
      So how are things today in Germany?  I asked a private correspondent in Germany (a layman) a question about that some time ago.  I had read a writing of Prof. Martin Scharlemann (~1970s?) in which he stated that he thought that German book publishers were pushing their writers of theology to not write things "distinctively Lutheran".  My German correspondent replied to this (giving me permission to quote him):

“In your e-mail you ask whether it was true of most German book publishers today to restrict the author to not say anything ‘distinctively Lutheran’. I don't know, ...

I would rather think that 

we don't have any distinct Lutheran authors anymore”.

I would add to his point about Germany another point about America, in the form of a question:

Are there any distinctly Missourian authors in America anymore?

As Stroebel would say "Well, think about it and say what you will…", it is amazing to me that Stroebel was even allowed to say what he did about Walther and the "Missourians", from… Germany.

The “Lutherans”, not “Evangelicals” – Walther corrects 3 blunders of Reformed “history”, and also Dr. Kolb's blunder

      I have blogged before (here and here) about how Walther corrected the false history of opposing Catholics and Reformed.  But I ran across a most instructive blurb by Walther in Der Lutheraner that masterfully catches a Reformed newspaper article in their false narrative of who the “Evangelicals” were in the beginning, during Reformation times.  From vol. 21 (May 15, 1865), p. 140: 

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

The Reformed Church Paper of Philadelphia in the number of April 27 [1865] writes the following: 

“When the evangelicals had made their excellent confession of faith before the Diet of Augsburg, the Duke of Bavaria asked Dr. Eck: ‘Can you refute this confession with good reasons?’ — ‘Not with the writings of the Apostles and Prophets,’ Eck answered, ‘but with those of the Fathers and Councils.’ — ‘So the Evangelicals,’ replied the Catholic Duke, ‘are in the Scriptures and we beside them.’ Under the name ‘Evangelicals,’ however, were at that time not only the Lutherans, but also the Melanchthonians and Reformed in Germany.”  

So far the Reformed Church Paper. Hereby it wants to refute Licentiate Stroebel, who had quite rightly claimed that the Reformed are also “opposed to the evangelical faith”. This refutation, however, is very unfortunate, since it claims that among the Evangelicals mentioned at the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, not only the Lutherans, but also the Melanchthonians and German Reformed were included. With this, the editor of the Reformed Church Paper makes three bad blunders at once: 

1. First, as is otherwise known, there were no Melanchthonians at that time. 

2. Secondly, the Duke could not have meant the German Reformed at that time, since they, as is also known throughout the world, did not want to unite with the Lutherans in the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, in which the Reformed doctrine is rejected in Article 10, because of the existing doctrinal difference, and therefore presented their own, special, so-called Tetrapolitan Confession, which was admittedly received very ungraciously by the Emperor and was not read out before the Imperial Diet. 

3. The third blunder, however, is the worst. The Reformed Church Paper bases its entire argumentation on the fact that the Catholic Duke of Bavaria, in his address, understood under the Evangelicals to be not only the Lutherans, but also the Reformed, and thus also praised their Confession as being contained in the Scriptures; but it is not at all true that the Duke used the expression “Evangelicals”; rather, he expressed himself thus, without any ambiguity: “So I hear, the Lutherans sit in the Scriptures, and we beside them.” —  

Are now the Lutherans to be understood not only as Lutherans, but also as Reformed? [Answer: No!] — After this unfortunate attempt to draw polemical weapons from church history, let the dear Reformed Church Paper therefore be warned not to plunge again into the ecclesiastical past for this purpose until it has studied church history somewhat more carefully, and indeed from the sources. In general, it should never forget that one learns by teaching, but that teaching must always be preceded by a certain amount of learning. The more it will do in this, the more modest it will become; for the more one really learns thoroughly, the clearer it becomes to one how much one does not yet know; while just the most superficial knower is usually particularly plagued by the tickle of “scholarship”. W. [Walther]

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

      Walther's words speak for themselves, but I would point out that he used the word "dear" when referring to the Reformed paper, something he did not do when he fought against the Catholic periodicals.  Walther wished to coax the Reformed back to their roots of the Lutheran Reformation, while the Church of the Pope, the Antichrist, will remain so until the Last Day.

      Two months later Walther touched on the same subject in a short blurb (vol. 21, July 15, p. 174):

Union. With “pleasure” the Apologist presents to its readers a communication from soldiers who, belonging to different confessions, have made union in the camp and now wish to see it carried out at home. In the message, the soldiers, some of whom are Congregationalists, others Evangelicals (Albrecht’s people, Methodists), Baptists, Episcopal Methodists and Evangelical Protestants, declare, among other things, the following: “Do we Evangelical congregations not all have one God, the same Savior, the same creed and the same baptism? Should and must only the name separate us, or the letter, or a word that was put or used this way or that way in the translation of the Holy Scriptures? That we are separated is mainly based on forms; but the main thing is one and the same.” — We think the soldiers are right. That the sects have not yet made a union is due only to unessential things; in the main they are one among themselves, namely in their views of what true Christianity is; on this they are only at odds with the Lutherans, who therefore, of course, cannot unite with them. W. [Walther]

 

As I read this blurb, I recalled an article by Prof. Dr. Robert Kolb in the Concordia Journal, of October 2001 where he held a similar spiritual position as these Civil War soldiers. The article had a title, in part, "On the Blessings and Challenges of Church Fellowship with the New Partners of the LCMS”: 

“C. F. W. Walther and Wilhelm Löhe may be worthy conversation partners in our discussion, but some of the most critical problems we face begin where they stopped speaking—or even some distance after they stopped speaking—more than a century ago. We must answer questions of which they could not dream. They [Walther and Loehe] provide us with an ecclesiology shaped for a world in which the church was conceived of as divided into “Konfessionen.” There is no readily understandable American translation of that concept! We have missed the chance to compose an expression of our ecclesiology for the denominational age of North American Christianity. We will reap only confusion and contention among ourselves and in our relations with other churches if we do not begin soon to formulate a proper expression of Biblical truth regarding the church for a post-denominational age. We must do so in humble submission to Scripture and to God's call to confess our faith abandoning use of ecclesiological problems as instruments for serving political interests [!] among us. We must turn to the honest theological exertion [i.e. forgetting Walther!]  required for repeating our doctrine of the church in ways that address the situation of the confession of Christ's Word in the early twenty-first century.”

Every time I read this plea from Dr. Kolb, I can hardly believe what he is saying, for it echos the spiritual unionism of the Civil War soldiers who questioned “Do we Evangelical congregations not all have one God?”

Pasche's Die Bibel und Astronomie; Copernicanism Part 19c

[2018-06-28: added quote from Lutheran Confessions (Ap. VII-VIII);2018-03-02: added info on Calov below in red; 2017-07-14: added note in red below (Hafenreffer)]
      This continues from Part 19b, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

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

      Pasche's 2nd book in German was published in 1906.  I present a translation of the Table of Contents (w/ hyperlinks) and a sampling of comments of selected topics.  This book is available at Google Books:

Die Bibel und Astronomie – 1906 (Google Books; >> full text here <<)
                       Contents.
                  First part. – The Bible.
1. The Bible teaches a certain astronomical plan - 7
2. The Bible always teaches only this astronomical system - 12
3. Scripture treats the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies as the actual movements of these bodies - 14
4. The much controversial word of faith of Joshua - 22
5. All Scripture is inspired by God  - 31
6. Scripture speaks rightly, as of spiritual, and also of natural things - 44
7. Scripture never speaks of the erroneous ideas of men - 53
8. The position of the old church - 61
9. The position of the Roman church - 70
10. The position of Luther - 80
11. The Lutheran Church from beginning to now - 100
12. The Rationalistic Accommodation Theory - 126
13. Every Christian must seriously take heed of false interpretations of the Scriptures - 143
14. You can not limp on either side - 153
15. Testimonies of truth - 158
                  Second part. – Astronomy.
1. History - 177
2. Copernican boastings - 202
3. Disbelief of naturalists - 214
4. Science has its limits - 230
5. Space is not infinite - 272
6. Changes in the heavens - 282
7. False conclusions - 295
8. Evil Cliffs - 339
9. Throndson - 386
10. Explanation of the calendar. Darkness until 1915 - 401

Here is a small sampling of the material covered:

1) p. 80: Martin Luther is quoted from his commentary on Genesis 1:14, St. Louis Edition vol 3, col. 40, paragraphs 39 & 40 (translation and highlighting by BackToLuther):

     39. So we see that it is everywhere from God's order, and no thing has its essence, nor governs by itself, but everything from the hand, counsels, and wills, that we should see God in all creatures, we open our eyes or ears , and so thank Him. And, when I have said above enough, we should not think that God had created the creatures, and afterwards went away, and let them act on their own accord; rather that He made them, and still make them, and keeps them by the Word. So the Word still drives the sun today and always from morning to evening. For it is not their own nature or power, but the Word by which they are created, that they go through the sky every day.

     40. Again, besides, God says that these two lights [Sun and Moon] are meant to be signs, tidings, years, and days; that is, that time could be counted and known. To do this, we have no thoughts from our own art, but everything is arranged by God. So, in these lights, both the day and the night are measured, that the sunshine is divided into twelve hours, and also teaches the year in the course of the sun, because every year it comes round, and with its course the seasons, summer and winter, with it.

For those that own Concordia Publishing House's Luther's Works, American Edition, volume 1, we are out of luck to find the above quote.  This is because the editors chose another series of lectures by Luther than the one used in the St. Louis Edition.  Nevertheless, even the American Edition teaches much the same, e.g. page 44 on Gen. 1:14:

The following "and for days" denotes the natural day, when the sun revolves around the earth. – Martin Luther

How many quotes does it take to convince us that Martin Luther taught just what the Holy Scriptures teach?

2) p. 100 ff.: Pasche gives a long list of Lutheran theologians who taught against the error of Copernicanism.  These include:

• Philip Melanchthon, Johann Arndt (1555—1621), Valerius Herberger (1562—1627), Konrad Dietrich  (1575-1639), J. M. Dillher (1604—1669), Christian Scriver (1629—1693), Abraham Calov († 1686), Johann Meisner († 1681), David Hollaz (1648—1713), Christian Stock (1672—1733), M. Gottfried Balthasar Scharff (1676-1744), Karl Gottfried Engelschall (1675—1738), J. J. Rambach (1693—1735), Valentin Ernst Löscher  († 1749), Dr. Michael Christian Rusmeyer, Dr. Andr. Gottlob Rudelbach († 1862), Licentiate K. Ströbel [or Stroebel] (praised Schöpffer's work), Dr. Alexander Frantz, Pastor Gustav Knak (1806—1878), N. Fr. S. Grundtvig (1783-1872), Prof. J. C. W. Lindemann († 1879), Dr. C.F.W. Walther. 

This list was partly compiled from Director J.C.W. Lindemann's article in Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt vol. 8, p. 112 "Kopernicus und die lutherischen Theologen".  It is only slightly incomplete as he overlooked Carl Gottlob Hofmann and Pastor C.A.T. Selle, one of the charter members of the old (German) Missouri Synod.
[2017-07-13: The Lutheran Hafenreffer should be added to this listing.  Walther quoted a statement made about him in his Baier-Walther Compendium (II, p. 86) the following (roughly translated):
Acta Eruditorum: "The theologian Hafenreffer suggested to his friend Kepler to develop a system that the earth moved as a hypothesis to save the phenomena as useful to astronomers, and abstain from reconciling it with the Bible." (Vol. anni 1719., p. 5-6)] 
[2018--3-02: On Calov, Robert Preus reported in his Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism, vol. 1, p. 399: “On the basis of such passages as Ps. 104:5; Eccl. 1:4; Ps. 19:6-7; 74:16; 104:19; and Jer. 31:35 Calov maintained that Scripture teaches that the earth does not move in an orbit but remains in a fixed position. Calov was fully aware of the theories of Copernicus and Kepler, which “appeared more probable to the reasonings in the physical sciences and mathematics,” but on this particular issue he is convinced that Scripture has decided the issue.”]
[2018-06-28: From the Lutheran Confessions, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article VII-VIII: Of the Church,  § 50 (Triglotta, p. 245, BookOfConcord.org): “For as … fixed movements of the heavenly bodies are truly God's ordinances and these are preserved by God,…”, Tappert, p. 178 translates as "fixed movement of the stars" or the German text says (translated): "For as heaven, earth, sun, moon and stars are of God's order and are preserved by God,..."; Latin text translated here: siderum = stars or "celestial bodies".

3) In the second part of the book, there is much history of science.  Any student of this topic would do well to include Pasche's books in their study.  He was quite resourceful in digging out so much information, even accessing the Library of Congress! (p. 361)  It amazes me how he could have compiled so much information before our age of the Internet!  Among the many scientists he covers are Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Newton, and many that were lesser known.  Many of these are also covered by Dr. Gerhardus Bouw, but perhaps both authors missed some information covered by the other.  But what strikes one is a statement he quotes regarding Gravitation (p. 198):

"The wisest naturalist of today will assure you that he knows absolutely nothing about the how of gravitation."

This statement was made before Einstein's theories were put forth. Yet it still striking how long this took since Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and how little is really understood about the nature of Gravity.  Even the Wikipedia article on Gravity openly states:

"There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways."

4) It should be noted that Pasche covers those who embraced a "flat earth" or the Zetetic Society on pages 380-386.  Suffice to say that Pasche, as well as Dr. Bouw, refutes both their science and their Scriptural basis.

Pastor and Mrs. F.E. Pasche
in later years.

– – – – – – – – – – – – 

      Further comments and analysis of this book are beyond the scope of this blog.  Pastor Pasche followed up with his English pamphlet in 1915 Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible but that ended his publications on this topic.  My mother had a copy of his later 1929 devotional book Daily Bread and apparently treasured it.  I have benefited greatly from studying this old (German) Missouri Synod pastor's books, but I still value C.F.W. Walther's judgment more in one certain area.  Walther made a striking statement in 1880 regarding Copernicus's own Christian faith that differed from Pasche's judgment.  In the next Part 26a (chronological sequence), I cover this. (Following the numerical sequence, the next Part 20 presents additional quotes from Luther and Walther).

[2023-12-01: added Part 19d at a later time here to finish the material on Pastor Pasche.]

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.