L03–I:3, 4. New Testament vs. Reformed on the Law (Why Reformed don't use Luther's Catechism)

      This continues from Part L02a (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In the following statements # 3 and #4, Walther introduces us to "the New Testament way" of presenting the Ten Commandments. This is an eye-opener on where the power of the Ten Commandments lies and it sheds light on the Old Testament (OT) ceremonial and ecclesiastical laws. This answered my own questions on why Luther changed the OT wording on some of the Ten Commandments! Now I have a renewed desire to learn from Luther's Small Catechism! — Why do the Reformed not use Luther's Small Catechism? Find out in this segment. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Nov. 1861), p. 321 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I. What part of the Law now binds everyone in the New Testament?

      3. Not only everything else [apart from the natural law] in the Old Testament, but also everything in the holy Ten Commandments that relates solely to the Old Testament covenant people and to their particular constitution and household, namely to their particular ceremonial or ecclesiastical [i.e. Sabbath keeping, circumcision, etc.] laws, as well as to their police or civil laws, has lost its power to bind the consciences in the New Testament and has been abolished by Christ; therefore we do not find the Ten Commandments quoted anywhere in the New Testament in the Old Testament form, but in a New Testament form. … The only reason why the Reformed insist that the holy Ten Commandments should also be included in the Christian catechism entirely in the form in which Moses received them from God and gave them to the Jews [in Exodus 20], is therefore lack of a proper understanding of the Law; while the New Testament way in which the Lutheran Catechism presents the holy Ten Commandments is a glorious testimony to the pure knowledge and deep understanding of Luther and the Lutheran Church regarding this matter.

      4. Neither the holy Ten Commandments nor any Old Testament law binds Christians because they were revealed by God through Moses, for as a written law they were imposed only on the separated people of the old covenant, the Jews.

What Luther says about Moses's Ten Commandments, and the Old Testament:

• “…but we will not have him [Moses] for our lawgiver. For we have law enough in the New Testament. Therefore we will not have him in our conscience, but will keep it pure in Christ alone.”
• “…the Ten Commandments are given to the Jews alone, and not to the Gentiles.”
• “With this passage [Acts 15:10] (as Paul with his) St. Peter also lifts the whole of Moses with all its laws from the Christians.” 
• “For Moses is a teacher of the Jewish people; therefore his words are all directed to the Jews alone.”
• “Dear Christians, you have heard that when they [i.e. Reformed] come in with their Moses and want to bind your consciences with his laws, say to them: Dear Lord, put your glasses on your noses and look at the text correctly.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Franz Pieper, although not mentioning Walther's 1861 essay, taught what Walther and Luther taught, Christian Dogmatics I, 532 [EN]:

“Not even the Ten Commandments in the form in which they were given to the Jews (Exodus 20) are binding on all men, but only the Ten Commandments as set down in the New Testament, as we have them, e. g., in Luther’s Catechism.”

Pieper's footnote references the same writing of Luther, “Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments”, that Walther had on pages 331-334 ([StL 20, 146-153; Am. Ed. 40, p. 92-98]). — In the next Part L04…

L02a: Luther on Slavery: "revolting"; "inequality"?

      This continues from Part L02 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — Although the subject of Slavery has been dealt with previously at some length, I was struck by the following comment in my recent reading on "Natural Law". It came from Prof. Roland Ziegler's essay on “Natural Law in the Lutheran Confessions” in the 2011 CPH book Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal (Internet Archive copy) and it caused me to stop and research it.  He stated, footnote #27, p. 78:

“As  revolting  as  it is to  our  modern  sensibilities,  for  the  reformers  the  right  to  individual  freedom  grounded  in  the  fact  of self-possession  (as opposed  to  forms  of slavery  of serfdom)  was  not  part  of natural  law. Thus,  Luther's  critique  of the  demands  of the  peasants  in the  Peasants’  Revolt  in  1525.”

"Revolting"? Ziegler used a strong word to describe modernists' mindset on slavery. He even seemingly included himself, stating "our modern sensibilities". With a statement like this, I wanted to find out exactly what Luther said on the institution of Slavery, The background to this is the peasants' Third Article which one may be tempted to think of as exhibiting a Christian attitude in their pleas, referencing several Bible verses (see p. 12). Then came Luther's answer and oh!… did I get the definitive Luther, and Christian, response to "our modern sensibilities":

“You [peasants] assert that no one is to be the serf of anyone else, because Christ has made us all free. That is making Christian freedom a completely physical matter. Did not Abraham [Gen. 17:23] and other patriarchs and prophets have slaves? Read what St. Paul teaches about servants, who, at that time, were all slaves. This article [of the peasants], therefore, absolutely contradicts the gospel. It proposes robbery, for it suggests that every man should take his body away from his lord, even though his body is the lord’s property. A slave can be a Christian, and have Christian freedom, in the same way that a prisoner or a sick man is a Christian, and yet not free. This article would make all men equal, and turn the spiritual kingdom of Christ into a worldly, external kingdom; and that is impossible. A worldly kingdom cannot exist without an inequality of persons, some being free, some imprisoned, some lords, some subjects, etc.; and St. Paul says in Galatians 5 that in Christ the lord and the servant are equal.” (AE 46, 39; StL 16, 66; WA  18:326.14–327.10)

Did Luther really say that?… beyond declaring that the peasants' demand to be a contradiction to the gospel, he went a step further and spoke of the worldly kingdom:

"A worldly kingdom cannot exist without an inequality of persons"

Inequality is necessary in the world? I was struck when reading Luther's forceful Biblical teaching that refutes all modernist theologians of today who would teach that Slavery, as an institution, was sinful. There is perhaps no more direct writing of Luther on this subject than when he addressed the peasant demands against their rulers. 

      If there was ever a statement of Luther against Communism and Socialism, this is it. All Christians would do well to study this to overcome the rhetoric of the world, the wisdom of the world today. Walther, in his writing against Communism and Socialism reported on the above statement of Luther where he "tells the peasants the truth, and shows by name that they have no right to call themselves Christians if they want to overcome violence by force and take the sword that God has not given them." — The series on Walther's teaching of the Law continues in Part L03.

L02–I:1, 2. What part of the Law now binds everyone? Natural law.

      This continues from Part L01 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — Walther organizes his essay into a question and answer format. There are four questions, the following is his first Thesis I question: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I. What part of the Law now binds everyone in the New Testament?

      1. The law that binds everyone, even in the New Testament, is solely the natural law originally written in the hearts of all people.

      2. Therefore the holy Ten Commandments, which God once revealed through Moses from Mount Sinai, as well as all other laws contained in the Old Testament, insofar as they contain the natural law, are binding on everyone.

What Luther says about the Natural Law, and the Ten Commandments and their relationship to Natural Law: 

• “So it is not only the law of Moses: Thou shalt not murder, commit adultery, steal [i.e. the Ten Commandments], etc., but also the natural law written in everyone's heart, as St. Paul teaches in Romans 2:1.”
• “Now where the law of Moses and the natural law are one, the law remains and is not abolished externally, but becomes spiritual through faith, which is nothing other than fulfilling the law, Rom. 3:28.”
• “For this reason, the image and the Sabbath, and all that Moses set more and above the natural law, because it has no natural law, is free, void and abolished, and is given only to the Jewish people in particular.”
• “Now where the law of Moses and the natural law are one, the law remains and is not abolished externally, but becomes spiritual through faith, which is nothing other than fulfilling the law, Rom. 3:28. For this reason, the image and the Sabbath, and all that Moses set more and above the natural law, because it has no natural law, is free, void and abolished, and is given only to the Jewish people in particular: no different than if an emperor or king made special laws and ordinances in his country, such as the Sachsenspiegel in Saxony, and yet the common natural laws prevail and remain throughout all countries, such as honoring parents, not murdering, not committing adultery, serving God, etc.”
• “Why then do we keep and teach the Ten Commandments? Answer: Because the natural laws are nowhere so finely and neatly written as in Moses.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 

This last statement was such an eye-opener for me as I struggled with the way Luther's Small Catechism treated the Ten Commandments. Why did Luther reword the commandments? Why not leave them the way they were written in Exodus 20? Do Luther's explanations follow the meaning of the Ten Commandments or do they alter them? These questions filled my mind, so much so that I wondered "Why study the Small Catechism? Why not just read the Ten Commandments?" But then Luther explains that the Ten Commandments do speak to the Natural Law. We will learn further about this aspect in the next blog Part L03 on "the New Testament way", not the Reformed way. But before that, an Excursus Part L02a presents a particularly controversial human practice that brought one of Luther's more striking responses.

L01: Walther (and Luther) on the Law; everyone bound by "natural law"

      It has been universally acknowledged that the lectures of C. F. W. Walther that were assembled into the book The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (or Law & Gospel) were an American masterpiece on the subject. Even Dr. Robert Kolb acknowledged this (p. 54) while at the same time being critical. So when I ran across a brief essay without an author's name in the 1861 Western District convention report (text DE, EN) on the subject of "the Law", I wondered that it was Walther who authored this piece. Why? Because the old Missouri Synod recognized that it was highly favored to have such a spiritual leader as Walther. (I am identifying the author as Walther until someone can provide evidence to the contrary.) And he was the obvious choice to handle this subject. What better teacher can there be to teach "the Law" than one who, since the days of Martin Luther, best distinguished it from the Gospel? (One can certainly rule out Artificial Intelligence to do the job!) — 

      Because of its importance, I have uploaded the original German text of this Western District essay to the Internet Archive here. After researching this short essay, it was discovered that a much expanded version was published later that same year (1861) in Lehre und Wehre, in 2 parts (November and December). The expanded portion was filled entirely with quotations from Luther's writings. There are 26 references to Luther.

      Upon reading this essay, one is immediately introduced to the subject of "natural Law". This was also the subject of a book of essays compiled and published by CPH in 2011 with the title Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal (Internet Archive copy). These were authored by an eclectic group that amazingly included ELCA and NALC (Marianne?) writers, ones who cannot teach a "Lutheran Reappraisal" because of their deviation from Lutheran doctrine in critical areas (e.g. Forde). There may be informative essays by some authors, such as Prof. Roland Ziegler on “Natural Law in the Lutheran Confessions” (p. 65 ff.), and Dr. Korey Maas, who stated (p. 226):

"A culture hostile to Christianity was, and is, incredibly unlikely to assent to any truth claim predicated on peculiarly Christian presuppositions".

But one can better avoid spiritual confusion when one rather learns first from the father of the Missouri Synod, and the Reformer, Martin Luther. — We begin our learning in the next Part L02. (The full text file will be available at the end of this series.) 

- - - - - - - - - - - -  TABLE OF CONTENTS  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

L01—This introduction: Walther and Luther on the Law

L02—Part I: 1., 2. What part of the Law now binds everyone? Natural law.

   L02a Excursus: Luther on Slavery: "revolting"; "inequality"?

L03—Part I: 3., 4. Reformed vs. New Testament on the Law (Why Reformed don't use Luther's Catechism)

L04—Part I: 5., 6. Core of Ten Commandments & Christian freedom

L05—Part II: 1.  The Golden Rule: misconception #1

L06—Part II: 2.  The Golden Rule: misconception #2

L07—Part II: 3. Love is the master of all commandments

L08—Part III: 1. Law, the unchangeable will of God, indelibly written in the heart of every man

L09—Part III: 2., 3. Law shows our sin, even for true Christians

   L09a Excursus: False charges by LCMS: Walther a Pietist? (Eggold–Piepkorn–Pelikan; Wohlrabe,  McCain)

L10—Part IV: 1. Preaching of repentance from the law precedes that of Justification; Eggold's 2nd criticism 

L11—Part IV: 2., 3. Proper distinction of Law from Gospel

Franzpieper.com is going away after 25 years; here's a copy

      Due to rising costs, I have decided to end the publication of franzpieper.com. That publication was a cry to the world of modern Lutheranism, especially today's LC–MS, that when they turned away from Dr. Pieper, they went away not only from his teaching, but away from Lutheranism and, in some cases, away from the Christian faith. I have noticed that at least one Wikipedia page referenced that old website that I produced and paid for 25 years ago… I recollect that I wanted to end the 20th Century with a tribute to, and defense of, this great Lutheran teacher, so the original date would be in the timeframe of late 1999, about 25 years ago. I notice that the page was first archived by the Wayback Machine on June 8, 2003. It has since been captured 79 times and should be available for as long as they keep going. —  Another notable tribute to Dr. Pieper was to publish what I called his "Last Words for his Missouri Synod" on my blog.

      When the webpage goes dark on or about September 13, it will probably be taken up by some casino or some nefarious outfit, as is the common practice by Internet hounds trying to get clickers who land there to click on some scam. Be careful! — Also the email address that I originally used for reader correspondence will be deactivated:  "postmaster@franzpieper.com". Correspondents should only use the Gmail account in the future: "BackToLuther@gmail.com". 

      The following is an exact copy of that webpage as it was when it first appeared in 1999. This blog post will be uploaded to the Internet Archive for safe-keeping:

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

Franz August Otto Pieper-

The 20th Century Luther

 

Martin Chemnitz has been called the Second Martin, referring to his defense of the doctrines brought to light by the reformer, Martin Luther. C.F.W. Walther has been called the American Luther, clearing away again all hindrance to the glory of the pure Gospel. Now there stands one who cannot be passed over in the lineage of great Lutheran teachers. The place was St. Louis, Missouri, America but more importantly, the doctrine was Lutheran.…. Christian.

The President of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis from the time of C.F.W. Walther’s death in 1887 to the time of his death in 1931, Pieper held the most visible position among orthodox Lutherans during this period. He also held the position of Synod President during a portion of this time. But it was his teaching that makes him stand out. As the 20th Century draws to a close, a survey of all those who were in teaching and leadership positions within the Lutheran Church in American and the world, shows one who stands out - Dr. Franz August Otto Pieper. He taught as the overriding doctrine of Scripture to be the universal/objective reconciliation/redemption/justification of the world. Now it remains for Dr. Pieper to take his place. The Lord knows this epithet will remain.  I confess - no one has pressed the kingdom of heaven into my lap more firmly than Dr. Pieper.

After his death, there began considerable controversies over the doctrines as written in the Brief Statement of 1932. In discussions with other American Lutheran church bodies, it was notably the doctrine of the universal will of grace and universal justification that brought contention and actual scorn.

The Norwegian Merger of 1917: A False Charge

This is perhaps the saddest part of this essay. It involves St. Louis professors and also a later Missouri Synod President. It involves the Synod that requested the essay on Justification at the first meeting of the Synodical Conference - the Norwegian Synod (now known as the Evangelical Lutheran Synod).

Rev. Theodore A. Aaberg of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (Norwegian Synod) in his 1968 book A City Set on a Hill offered an evaluation of the question regarding the advice given by the Missouri Synod professors F. Pieper, W.H.T. Dau, and T. Graebner (pgs 274-282). There would be no question in this matter except the leaders of the Minority then joined the Majority in union with the United and Hauge Synods in 1917 and further said one thing and those who gave the advice said another. The leading spokesman for the Missouri professors was Franz Pieper.

C.K. Preus was the son of the first president of the Norwegian Synod and president of the Synod’s seminary at Decorah, Iowa. I.B. Torrison was a Synod pastor. During a meeting of the Minority pastors of January 17-18, 1917 at the West Hotel, Minneapolis, they said "the letter meant that the ‘Minority’ should not separate itself from the Norwegian Synod but stay and bear witness to the truth and continue so to do as the Synod merged with the other bodies" (J.C.K. Preus, The Union Movement.., p. 9) In this same publication, J.C.K. Preus stated: "One deplorable result was the charge made by a few ‘Minority’ men to the effect that Preus and Torrison had not reported correctly the advice given by the St. Louis professors". C.K. Preus (and J.C.K. Preus, his son) in effect charges Dr. Pieper with giving conflicting advice, between the December 28, 1916 personal meeting and the January 9, 1917 letter. The following is the letter:

Letter of Jan. 9, 1917:

St. Louis, Mo.,
Jan. 9, 1917.

Dear Prof. C.K. Preus
Pastor I.B. Torrison
Decorah, Iowa

Dear Brothers:

                We send you, according to your request, the written record of the decision which we arrived at on Dec. 28th during the conversations you asked for.

Concerning the matter which you laid before us, the question is not whether the Minority should enter into the situation as it now is developing in the Norwegian Synod- something we could not advise anyone to do. But the question is whether or not the Minority is compelled for conscience’ sake to step out of the Norwegian Synod, or whether circumstances are still such that further witness for the truth is your duty. Our opinion is:

                1. Since it is admitted by the Union Committee that the insistence of the Minority that thesis I of "Opgjor" be eliminated is in agreement with the Scriptures and the Confessions,

                2. Since the Union Committee has openly declared that the expression in Thesis IV of "Opgjor" ("the sense of responsibility in regard to the acceptance or rejection of grace") is to be thus understood, that God alone is the cause of acceptance, man alone the cause of rejection,

                3. Since silence is not imposed on the Minority, but rather freedom of speech is expressly conceded in regard to "Opgjor",

                we believe that the time for the Minority to sever its connection with the Norwegian Synod has not yet come, but that it is much more your duty through your witness to the truth in the Norwegian Synod, if God wills, to bring about its complete recognition.

Respectfully,
[Signed] W.H.T. Dau
F. Pieper
Th. Graebner

This charge is false.

Graebner letter of 1938:

the charge was again made in later years after Pieper’s death by one of the St. Louis professors, Theodore Graebner. The charge is made in a letter by Professor Graebner to Dr. Nils Ylvisaker on November 12, 1938, which follows:

                                                                                                                November 12, 1938

Dr. Nils Ylvisaker

425 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Dear friend Ylvisaker:

Pff3: Old Missouri republishes Pfeiffer (another BTL book)

      This concludes from the previous Part Pff2 (Table of Contents in Part Pff1) in a 3-part presentation of the old Missouri Synod's reprint of August Pfeiffer's influential book Lutheranism Before Luther [WorldCat]. — The well-known encyclopedic German Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB) article writer downplayed Pfeiffer's polemics stating (translated): "By far more important than his polemical and ascetic writings are Pfeiffer's works on exegesis, criticism and hermeneutics of the Old Testament." Judging by his own polemical writings, Pfeiffer may disagree with this biographer's judgment. — The ADB writer also said this in 1887 about Pfeiffer and his book:

"In 1679 he took a stand against the “fundamental questions against the Lutheran religion” spread by the Jesuit Arnold Engel with his treatise “Lutherthum vor Luther” (Lutheranism before Luther), published several times and recently reprinted."

When one searches WorldCat for the versions that were "published several times", one finds that all of these were in the 17th and early 18th centuries, indicating how popular this book was back then. But then came a long period of inactivity until the later part of the 19th century when the publisher of old Missouri Synod literature resurrected Pfeiffer's work with its "recently reprinted" version in 1872. WorldCat does not have a record of this "recently reprinted" publication, as reported in the ADB of 1887, but my upload to the Internet Archive has made it available for use to the public. And thanks to its quality of print and updated orthography, and to the tremendous advancement in machine OCR and translation, I have been able to present this book in an English translation to a much wider audience. 

Notes on this translation: 

• In this publication, Latin phrases are used frequently, but are many times followed by an inline translation making it much easier for machine translation into English. Even so, in the many footnotes there are no inline translations of the Latin, so I inserted the Google Translate text in many cases. Unfortunately this machine translation of Latin is at times choppy and not always easy to follow. 
• A "Table of Contents" with hyperlinks was added to greatly enhance navigation and understanding.
• Every page number is linked to its respective page in the original publication for ease of comparison and review.
• It should be noted that there is a play on the word “Engel” which is both the Jesuit priest's name and the German word for “angel”.
• The section on pages 194-216 was unclear to me at first as to who was writing, Pfeiffer or Father Engel. After reading it, it appears to be Engel's sarcastic mocking of Pfeiffer, perhaps putting words in his mouth, a typical tactic of papists. There are copious footnotes on each page which were clearly written by Pfeiffer refuting the points made by Father Engel.

If this translation is too long or too difficult to digest, I suggest reading the 38 page Preface to get a general idea of what these Lutherans were facing in the 17th century. — The following is my partially polished machine translation, with navigational and reference links added:

The file may be downloaded >> here  <<; the German text file here.

Even with the choppiness of the text, it is my hope that the clear passages will provide the reader with at least a general idea of the underhanded tactics used by the Jesuits, and how this faithful Lutheran scholar firmly defended the truth. As Walther says (Pff1), you "will not regret it".

Pff2: Evangelical doctrine, “defend to the death”; Harrison a “deceitful peacemaker”?

      This continues from the previous Part Pff1 (from April) (Table of Contents in Part Pff1) in a 3-part presentation of the old Missouri Synod's reprint of August Pfeiffer's influential book Lutheranism Before Luther. — If there is one quote that stood out to me above all others, it was this one in Pfeiffer's Preface, page 3:

 “As long as the Pope remains Pope and we Evangelicals remain Evangelicals, a reasonable person can easily see that no religious settlement can be hoped for between us, that deceitful peacemakers are not to be trusted, and that it is best to defend the truth to the death, as God wills.”

Compare this with LCMS President Matthew Harrison's comment in his Preface to his translation of Walther's Church & Office:

“As I perused the Catechism of the Catholic Church for contemporary documentation of positions of the Roman Catholic Church which Walther addresses and which are the object of Lutheran polemic, I noted numerous points of remarkable convergence of Lutheran and Roman Catholic doctrine on the Office of the Ministry. While we must reject what is false, we can also joyously note what is right—no matter who says it.”

Would it not be fair to say that Pfeiffer would call Pres. Harrison a "deceitful peacemaker"? — Let us hear more from our dear Pfeiffer:

Notable Quotes:

5: "Where one Pope decrees contrary to the other, one of the two must necessarily err in his decree"

6: "popes have often in their decrees…run directly counter to the revealed Word of God"

17: "they invoke the authority of the Church" over Christ and the Apostles.

24: "so the wine that is not partaken of sacramentally, but is poured out carelessly, is not Christ's blood, but only mere wine"

30: "the one against whom the following writing is directed, namely a Jesuit, Fr. Arnold Engel…has copied his entire work from others, has not yet read our writings properly, has not examined the passages from Luther and others himself" [A common practice of papists in their polemics.]

33: The papists' "great following does not harm the lies and our small following does not harm the truth".

36: Jesuit Jacob Reihing "turned from a zealous champion of the Roman Church into a staunch confessor of the evangelical doctrine"

37: Papacy "like a rotten fish".

44: "since they [papists] have no intention to proceed in the main controversy, to make a diversion…and to lead us away from the Scriptures". 

44-45: "this Antichrist is none other than the Roman Pope [regarded not as a single person, but as an ever-living enemy in many successive persons]" [See this blog post.]

50: "so it is enough that I know and prove that the Pope, as he now is, is the Antichrist, … even if I cannot specify, know or point out the year and day when he first became so."

55: "is it not enough that we show the papists their gross errors from God's infallible Word…?"

59: "the pope's growth …is seen for the first time in Victor as a child or child in the womb, in Boniface III as an adolescent or boy, in Leo III as a youth…, in Gregory VII as a man, and in Leo X as an old man"

67: Fr. Engel "claims that if the papacy were…not from God, it would not have stood for so long"

70: "One must therefore distinguish the papacy, i.e. the falsifications of doctrine…from that which has remained good under the papacy."

77: "…but therefore the Papists are as little catholic as a quack is a doctor".

77-78: "Father Engel…wants to insist on the everlasting succession,…from one bishop to another… It is enough that the faith remains in the divine Scriptures and in some people's hearts at all times."

81: "This question: whether before Luther there were Lutherans or Christians of the same mind or faith as Luther? …has already led many a man to fall away and fall into hell".

84: "if we now speak of doctrine,… all orthodox believers before Luther were certainly in agreement with Luther in the fundamentals of Christian doctrine".

89: "it of no help to the papists that they object that all other heretics also appeal to Scripture" [See how Prof. Joel Biermann uses the same tactic as the papists.]

90: Papists "do not desire to learn the truth from the divine Word".

95: "it may well happen, and has happened very often, that the visible church…which publicly professes the true Christian faith…is covered with the clouds of affliction, stirred up…by false teachers" [Cp. to this blog post on old Missouri's teaching.] 

103: "But with such “new” [Lutheran] doctrine we already want to go to heaven, which is new in the eyes of the Pope, but old in the eyes of Christ."

105: "we have a legitimate calling.…rather congratulate ourselves that we do not have the papal mark on us."

119: "so they are even greater fools who therefore fall away to the papacy and rely on the fact that in the end they can depart on Christ's merit". [e.g. Father Richard John Neuhaus]

125-6: "the term “Roman Church” has two meanings…Either by the Roman Church is meant the multitude of those who cling to the Roman Pope … or the remnant of the ancient Roman Church, or the pious Christian hearts among the outward group of the Roman Church"

129: "I hope that Fr. Engel's little nut will have been bitten open in this way and, praise God, it has left me without any toothache." [:-) – Pfeiffer's lighthearted joke!]

131: "he knows well that according to the papal doctrine no man can be assured of God's grace"

134: Luther "is as little to be called a weather vane as Augustine".

138: "For their 'unity'…is only enforced and does not consist in the unity of the Spirit".

145: "Not Luther, but the Pope has hatched completely new and unheard-of doctrines"

163: "that I therefore not only maintain the unconquerable and alone saving evangelical doctrine before and after, but also defend it against you and your kind to the death".

There it is again, that phrase "defend to the death", both in the Preface and here in his hot battle against the Jesuit Father Engel. Pfeiffer signals the absolute importance of the "evangelical doctrine", i.e. the Gospel – it is a matter of life and death. — In the concluding Part Pff3, we explain some details pertinent to our translation, and then present our full translation.

Handel died a Christian

      The spiritual condition of George Frideric Handel in his dying days was not recorded in the Westminster Abbey article on him, only that "he hoped he might be buried in the Abbey". The same is true for the Wikipedia article on him. All it could report was that "He died in 1759 at home in Brook Street, at the age of 74." It also reported that he was blind in his last years, which explains the description of events that Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer described in a short blurb on him in Der Lutheraner. This article fills in the most important detail on the most important aspect of his life, more than his music. In the following translation, some hymn verses unfortunately do not retain the rhyming of the German original, but do retain their meaning.  From Der Lutheraner, vol. 50 (1894), p. 65 [EN]: 

I Know That My Redeemer Liveth.

 

      George Frideric Handel, the composer of the "Messiah", was not only a highly famous composer, but also a devout, believing Christian. In April 1759 he lay on the sickbed that also became his deathbed. When he realized that his end was near, he had his servant read the 91st Psalm to him [Ps. 91]. "That was beautiful," he then said. "O, this is food that satisfies and refreshes. Read me some more, read me the fifteenth chapter of St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians [1 Cor. 15]." The servant read again. Several times Handel interrupted him, saying, "Stop, read that again!" After a while he had his favorite hymn read to him from his blessed mother's hymnal:

I am certain in my faith, 

Which incorporates me in Christ. 

Who can rob me of this treasure, 

Which his blood and death pledge to me? 

His precious Word confirms this, 

Therefore my faith says: "I am certain." —

      The sick man's lips whispered softly during the reading, speaking along with the words as much as he knew by heart, then he said: 

"O, it is a beautiful thing when someone can be so sure of his faith! How glorious is the evangelical church with its preaching of the free grace of God in Christ, as the hope of the sinner! If we had to rely on our works, dear God, what should become of us! What good we have in us, is it not all a gift from God? But what we have received as a gift, we cannot claim as if it were a merit. And have we done all that we could and ought to have done? Oh, that God would have mercy on us, how many things complain against us! If the word of grace be nothing, then farewell, hope! When I was young, they tried to make me a Catholic in Italy. O Lord, my God, I thank thee that thou hast stood by me there, that I have not gone into the net; for then I should now lie without consolation. Truly Dr. Martin Luther has found out the right gospel, that to faith in Jesus Christ salvation is given by grace. I cling to this grace with both hands.

      To thee alone, O Lord Jesus Christ, 

      My hope is on earth."

      Handel had often expressed the wish to die on the day of his Savior's death. His wish was granted. On Good Friday he passed away with the softly whispered words, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! Oh, let me die with you and rise again!"

      In the Westminster Abbey in London he lies buried next to the famous men of his adopted fatherland. His grave is marked by a meaningful monument, which is at the same time a testimony to his Christian faith. He stands there life-size in front of an organ, in his hand a sheet of music on which can be clearly read the words which he set to music in his "Messiah" in such an incomparable way, the words: "I know that my Redeemer liveth." [Job 19:25-26] L. F. [Ludwig Fuerbringer]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

      Wikipedia and Westminster Abbey make no mention of Handel's resistance to becoming Catholic in Italy. But he explicitly called out the soul destroying nature of that church body, naming Martin Luther as God's instrument to defend the Gospel. All those who admire Handel and his musical works know nothing of him if they ignore what he believed, indeed he was "so sure of his faith". The Bible passages Handel selected for consolation prompted me to read the same passages so that I too may be consoled. May I and all readers of this post find comfort in not just Handel's music but, more importantly, his Christian faith.

[Following the break below is the original German text:]