Bente's Law & Gospel, Repentance & Good Works: another BTL book

     Prof. Friedrich Bente is either forgotten or criticized or ignored in today's LC–MS, but in his teaching, he was close to Walther and Pieper.  Next to his hated "Introduction to the Book of Concord" (in the venerable Triglotta) is his 1917 series of essays in Lehre und Wehre entitled Law and Gospel: Repentance and Good Works. These were shortly thereafter compiled into a 1917 book of the same title, with updates.

      Some time ago I had discovered that these were translated by a "J. A. S." in the Concordia Lutheran periodical of the Concordia Lutheran Conference. It began in their March/April issue of 1974, but as far as I can tell was never finished. As I compared these with the original German text, I found some differences, e.g. section numbering is somewhat different from the book version. Because of this, I decided to produce my own polished machine translation.

     But before presenting some quotes from the book, I present Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer's brief comments in Der Lutheraner when it first appeared (Nov. 6, 1917, p. 370):

• Law and Gospel: Repentance and Good Works. Primarily according to the 4th, 5th and 6th articles of the Formula of Concord. By F. Bente. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo. 104 pages 6x9, bound in cloth with cover title. Price: 60 cts. postage paid.

     "A Gift for the Four-Hundredth Anniversary of the Reformation” is the title of this book, and it treats the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, which the Reformation laid out again according to Scripture and set forth in its confessions. It consists of a series of articles that appeared in Lehre und Wehre during the summer months of this year, but here they are supplemented with additions. The articles are divided into 34 sections, and the entire treatise displays the mastery that readers of Lehre und Wehre have long recognized in the author: thorough, comprehensive treatment; clear, incisive exposition; and a lively, engaging presentation. Writings such as these, which so thoroughly introduce the fundamental ideas of the Reformation, are the most valuable jubilee books, which will not become outdated but possess lasting value. But they are not to be merely skimmed over, but read and studied.

- - - - - - -  Continued in Part 2  - - - - - - -

In the next Part 2, we present Bente's first paragraph as a thumbnail sketch of the book. Then samples of quotes from the book for a better overview.

- - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - 

Part 1: This introduction; Fuerbringer's book review

Part 2: Law & Gospel (Part 2)

Part 3: Repentance & Good Works (Part 3)

Fendt3: Franzmann's & Graebner's halting speech, tears

      This concludes from Part 2 in a 3-part series (Table of Contents in Part 1) presenting certain highlights from the 1980 book by ALC theologian Edward C. Fendt regarding the controversies between the LC–MS and the ALC. —

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

317: “A few months later I talked to Dr. Martin Franzmann. He told me that his son was in a college of the Wisconsin Synod and he went on: "When he comes home for vacation it becomes a problem for him to pray with the rest of us in the family" and a tear fell from his eyes. He added haltingly: "There must be something wrong with synodical resolutions when they destroy prayer fellowship in the family."” [Franzmann was truly a tragic theologian and a deceptive unionist. As with John Behnken, this Bible scholar should have read and inwardly digested Luke 14:26.]

317: Prayer Fellowship in post-Walkout times: “Even though the LC-MS has been led to declare that for it the A.L.C./ LC-MS fellowship is a "fellowship in protest" I know that a fellowship of prayer between the members of the A.L.C./LC-MS commission still exists”” [1978  – prayer fellowship under J.A.O. Preus??]

318: “... that A.L.C. support of the "dissidents" only and not of the LC-MS in this struggle was a serious matter for the LC-MS. … This could cause some problems in the future.” [This seems to expressly declare that the ALC officially supported the “dissidents”, or so-called “moderates” or “progressives”. Many of today's LC–MS leaders and teachers would sympathize with them.]

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

But the most stunning account that Fendt related was the "breakthrough" of the prominent LC–MS theologian Prof. Theodore Graebner. Although I reported on this in 2011 (here and here), I want to repeat it here again, from p. 26-27:

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

But the real “breakthrough” in Dr. [Theodore] Graebner’s change in attitude toward other Lutherans was observed at the Philadelphia meeting of this conference (joint faculty meetings which started at Valparaiso) several years later. In a session when Dr. Elmer Flack of Hamma presided, Dr. Graebner asked for the floor to make a statement. I wish somebody had taken down the statement, but all of us were intent to listen carefully; the statement in essence was:

“All of you know how active I have been in keeping my church suspicious and hostile with respect to developments in other Lutheran churches. I want you to know that I regret many things I have written and said. I have learned to respect and trust many Lutheran brethren in other synods. From now on I shall devote the rest of my life, the few years that may remain to me, to rectify matters and plead with my brethren in the Missouri Synod to follow my example.”

     At times his voice halted and tears came into his eyes while making this statement. All of us in the meeting were stunned, not exactly surprised, but lacking words to express our appreciation. I remember seeing Elmer Flack’s tears roll down on his face and temporarily he was immobilized. But after a bit he arose and without saying a word he stepped over to shake Dr. Graebner’s hand and embrace him. Then I remembered Dr. Greever’s prediction (watch Graebner for changes) and thanked God with the others at the meeting for Dr. Graebner’s statement.

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

There is much material in Fendt's book that that does not deal directly with the LC–MS. Yet it will give the reader much of the background information to more fully understand the opposition. — The sad thing for me is that, since the LC–MS tolerated "moderates" after the Walkout if they did not leave, they now find themselves in just the same dangerous position as in the times leading up to the Walkout of 1974. May God have mercy on that church body!

- - - - - - - - - - - 

Postscript: For those who have purchased the 2024 CHI book Rediscovering the Issues, they may want to compare Pres. Matthew Harrison's brief "Historical Introduction" with Fendt's earlier history. Although Harrison's writing is not without benefit, yet it and the rest of the book, mostly dwells on the latter events that had their roots during Fendt's history, and so, after reading Fendt, one is left with far fewer questions than by just reading the 2024 CHI book.

Fendt2: Behnken, Bohlmann, the Preus cousins

      This continues from Part 1 in a 3-part series (Table of Contents in Part 1) presenting certain highlights from the 1980 book by ALC theologian Edward C. Fendt regarding the controversies between the LC–MS and the ALC. — We continue our sampling of quotes:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

264 ff.: July 7-9, 1960 – big meeting between LC-MS and NLC: LC–MS: John Behnken, Martin Franzmann (see above p. 191), Alfred Fuerbringer, H. J. A. Bouman (Dean of Systematics), Oliver Harms (1st VP), L.B. Meyer, (Planning Counselor),  Norman Nagel (Cambridge-Ev Luth Ch of England), Th. Nickel (Pres. N. Ill. Dist.), Wittmer (3rd VP); NLC men: Bergendoff, Fendt, Menter, etc. for the National Lutheran Council  – “President John W. Behnken presided and opened the session with prayer.” [Behnken was already in fellowship with the NLC. Others were there to back him up!]

270: Franzmann: “Both therefore submit in principle to the authority of the Scriptures.” [Franzmann grants the opposition with submitting to the “authority of the Scriptures”, indicating that he did not, because they did not.]

270: Franzmann: “"The NLC presentation tends to view the 'Doctrine of the Gospel' in antithesis to 'whole theological systems' and to emphasize its basic simplicity. The Missouri presentation views the Doctrine of the Gospel in its organic connection with the whole of divine revelation and therefore tends to stress the innate comprehensiveness and complexity of the Doctrine of the Gospel. [Franzmann is utterly unclear on the “differences”. This is not about knowledge of languages, this is about theology and doctrine, and Franzmann falls into a mud hole. This is confirmed by the followup statement:] “It was generally agreed that the two papers supplement each other.”

280 ff.: Nov. 18-19, 1960 – 2nd big meeting, LC-MS and NLC: Bouman, Tappert, “Confessional Subscription”, 

280: "In this respect there is a danger of a "legalistic use" of the Confessions" [This smokescreen wording that is trying to hide a quatenus, or conditional, subscription to the Lutheran Confessions.]

281: “term "tension" was questioned and subsequently changed to "distinction."" ["Tension" says it better for truth cannot stand with false. There should have been no agreement if differences remained.]

283: “Both of the meetings on "Doctrinal Conversations of Lutheran Cooperation" were characterized by friendly exchange of convictions and opinions. The last action quoted in the above minutes virtually meant full steam ahead to explore real cooperation between the participating [syncretistic] groups. Everybody present seemed happy over the progress being made.”

 

290: "President Harms brought along a strong committee, all of them except one continuing as members from the former panel in the doctrinal discussions. The sole exception was Dr. J. A. O. Preus, then president of Concordia Theological Seminary in Springfield, Illinois.: [J. A. O. Preus would play a large role in the events of the 1974 Walkout.]

300: Fendt: “My overriding concern stems from the fragile status of this fellowship at the present time (November 1978) [Fendt sees the LC–MS drifting away from ALC.]

300-1: “... always remembering the explanation of the eighth commandment in Luther's Small Catechism…  I have often wondered whether writers in Christian News, Affirm, and the Confessional Lutheran, et al have remembered this injunction. I do not want to become guilty of character assassination.” [Fendt implies these publications broke the 8th commandment, and were “guilty of character assassination”.]

302: “In the words of one contemporary church historian not in the A.L.C., but for valid reasons does not want his name alluded to here, "this is the stuff that makes church history alive and meaningful."" [I strongly suspect this was CHI Director August Suelflow.]

304: “enabling men to proclaim the Word of God to save the sinner” [this phrasing leaves the impression that man’s proclamation “saves the sinner”, but actually the sinner is already saved and needs only believe the Gospel!]

306-7: “The LC-MS gave its approval for this fellowship with the A.L.C. with a decisive majority vote in its 1969 Convention. At the 1969 LC-MS Convention Dr. Harms was not re-elected as president of his church. He was succeeded by Dr. J.A.O. Preus. However, that convention commended Harms for his leadership in the fellowship negotiations … and did not comply with Dr. Preus' suggestion to delay the vote of approval until more definitive statements could be made in the areas of the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Holy Scripture by the negotiating commissioners.” [The 1969 LC–MS convention was schizophrenic by approving fellowship with the ALC and electing J.A.O. Preus. The Synod would later reverse itself.]

314-5: “In the service [Sept. 1970, installation of Richard Schultz as Pres. of CTS-Springfield] when the time came for greetings from other seminaries, Dr. John Tietjen, then president of Concordia Theological Seminary in St. Louis, was the first speaker. In his greeting he included a recital of the covenant made by David and Jonathan over against King Saul when the king threatened them. He asked his new counterpart in Springfield to join him in a similar covenant and in his reply Dr. Schultz accepted the offer. Most of the persons present readily understood who was being referred to in the portrayal of King Saul.” [J.A.O. Preus referred to as King Saul and Schultz joined with John Tietjen against J.A.O.P.]

316: “1971. Chief essayist for the LC-MS during all these years of meetings has been Dr. Ralph Bohlman. His in-depth approach and well-organized materials have always impressed the Commission.” [This “in-depth approach” – was it any different than Franzmann??] … This has always been a refreshing interlude when each delegation learns at first hand that the situation in the other church is not as bad as it was made out to be by some agitator, news release, or disaffected commentator." [These "disaffected commentators" were the watchmen on the walls defending orthodoxy.]

 316: “It is fortunate that the presidents of our two churches are cousins. [J.A.O. Preus, David Preus] They have known each other since early childhood and can communicate with each other with genuine understanding and affection. Even though they may disagree in matters of ecclesiastical procedures, they share a common faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Both are committed to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.” [Fendt would hardly admit to real doctrinal differences that David later described in his book Two Trajectories.]

317: WELS, John Behnken and prayer fellowship: "I well remember many years ago, when the old fellowship was broken between the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods, President Behnken and I … He told me how for many years he had had Thanksgiving Day dinner with a close relative (sister perhaps?) who belonged to a congregation of the Wisconsin Synod. He went on: "Now she will have been told that we cannot any longer pray together. What would you do?" [The theological leader of the LC–MS asked an ALC professor how to handle a question of fellowship.] I responded quickly: "I would pray with her" and he said "I shall.""  [Behnken practiced prayer fellowship with one who would not believe it proper and thereby do violence to her conscience. See Luke 14:26 – "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters…he cannot be my disciple".

- - - - - - - - -  Concluded in Part 3  - - - - - - - - -

In the next Part 3 we conclude our series.

Fendt's history of LC–MS: precursor to CHI book on Walkout issues (Part 1 of 3)

      This blog series was prompted when I discovered that the Internet Archive has recently (February 25, 2023) scanned and made available to borrow a book that provides more of the "inside story" of the early downfall of the LC–MS, from the early decades before much of the history presented in Concordia Historical Institute's (CHI, 2024) Rediscovering the Issues Surrounding the 1974 Concordia Seminary Walkout. The 1980 book is The Struggle for Lutheran Unity and Consolidation in the U.S.A. from the Late 1930's to the Early 1970's, by Edward C. Fendt, a professor in the old ALC which merged into today's ELCA. It was written in 1978, 4 years after the 1974 Walkout staged at Concordia Seminary, and was published by the Augsburg Publishing of the old ALC. I have blogged about this book in the past in 2011 (here and here; search "Fendt") but its importance needs to be once again pointed out. It is a good basis and companion for the CHI book released in 2024, 50 years after the 1974 Walkout, and edited by Dr. Ken Schurb. Fendt's book is a good source for those who want to know more of the historical events and people that led up to what Prof. Kurt Marquart referred to as an "Explosion".

      Fendt's book contains accounts of surprising "infighting" within the LC-MS teachers, and of the doctrinal issues, in the following:

Notable Quotes:

83: "If the members present had known how Dr. [Theo.] Graebner felt about the Doctrinal Affirmation they might have called for his resignation as one of the co-editors of the Lutheran Witness."

85: “A Statement” of the 44 signers reprinted

93: "The ALC commissioners declared that we hold to the same truth which they term Objective Justification even though we may prefer such terms as Atonement and Reconciliation." [ALC shows its weakness or even denial of Objective Justification.]

94: "Dr. Fendt: 'It's also a problem of language. The evangelical Pieper becomes cold and didactic in Mueller’s Dogmatics. The only objection the Columbus faculty had to the Doctrinal Affirmation was its poor, archaic English.'" [Fendt labels “evangelical Pieper”!  But he does not call Pieper’s Brief Statement “evangelical”!]

 95: "Matzner [ALC]: We object to 'objective justification’ as you [LC–MS] object to 'intuiti fidei'; to us they are on par." … "[J.H.C.] Fritz: Universal, or objective, justification is the basis for subjective justification." [Thank you Prof. Fritz!! Clear evidence that the ALC erred on the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.]

 

191-2: Fendt, of the ALC, speaks highly of Prof. Martin Franzmann, but that Franzmann was an unhappy man in the LC–MS.

192-193: Fendt: “Dr. Franzmann was committed to look at confessional and synodical statements in the light of the Holy Scriptures, not to look at the Scriptures in the light of confessional or synodical statements.” [See this blog post, Franzmann's conditional confession.”]

 233-239: Prof. Julius Bodensieck, of the old ALC, wrote a venomness essay against inerrancy of Holy Scripture. Yet the LC–MS was in fellowship with the ALC for a time!

235: Bodensieck: "which of the text forms is supposed to be the 'inerrant' one? Is it the 'Received Text' from which Luther translated the New Testament into German, and from which the Authorized Version was made?  Or is it the Hebrew Old Testament in Kittel's edition or Nestle's Greek New Testament text? The usual escape from the dilemma is to retreat behind the original autographic copies of the biblical books and to assert their total inerrancy. But this escape is illusory" [Franz Pieper addressed all these concerns masterfully in his Christian Dogmatics, p. 232 ff.; CSL Prof. Joel Biermann speaks much like Bodensieck.]

236: Bodensieck: "The third term used in the description of the Word of God is 'inerrant'. I have alluded to it above. A few more words are necessary here.  I assume that this term has the purpose here of eliminating the possibility of assuming that any geographical, biological, astronomical, historical statement in the Bible may be in error." [I addressed the "astronomical" in my Copernicanism series.]

237: Bodensieck: "...earmarks of current Fundamentalism." [This was the charge of the liberals in the LC–MS]

237: Bodensieck: "It [inerrancy] is Docetic, in that it denies the reality of the fact that while the Bible is the Word of God it is in every moment also the word of man. [This is the teaching of today's LC–MS.] Such a 'theologia gloriae' endangers the doctrine of the Person of Christ, robs Christianity of its essential historicity, and reduces the Bible to the level of the Koran which is held by Islam to be, in the Fundamentalistic sense, a 'heavenly', suprarational, inerrant book. Luther's statements concerning the Scriptures, it should be remembered, were dynamic-Christological, completely oriented to the mystery of the Incarnation. Did not Christ come into the world in the form of a Servant? And is it not precisely this aspect which needs to be stressed: The Word of God became flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ, and, in the same manner, the Word of God can now, in the Bible, be read in the words and languages of man? [Bodensieck speaks for today’s LC-MS! SCR1886 acknowledges this assertion and completely refutes it!]

238: Bodensieck: "If we argue that the Bible is inspired because it claims inspiredness for itself [B. is confessing that he does not believe the Bible is inspired, as the Apostle Paul does, 2 Tim. 3:16], and that therefore its statements are correct and that therefore we may safely erect our theological systematic superstructure on that basis, we argue in a circle, and it may easily happen [not sure?] that the whole structure collapses because the foundation proved to be untenable, indefensible, and treacherous."

- - - - - - - - -  Cont'd in Part 2  - - - - - - - - -

      Prof. Bodiensieck, although a vehement opponent to the inerrancy of the Bible, was more honorable than those who tried to hide their opposition, like many (most?) in today's LC–MS. As mentioned previously, Herman Sasse also made the false charge of "docetic" against inerrancy. — In the next Part 2…

Table of Contents 

Part 1: Fendt's history of LC–MS: precursor to CHI book on Walkout issues

Part 2:  Behnken, Bohlmann, the Preus cousins

Part 3: Franzmann's & Graebner's halting speech, tears

Walther: "We cannot err…"

      While reviewing old posts, I ran across the following that puts to shame those who would assert that Pieper's teaching was different than Walther's. From Walther, 1870 "Communion Fellowship", p. 26 [See this blog post.]

For as certain as the Bible is the Word of God and inspired by the Holy Spirit, as certain as Christ is the Son of God and the mouth of eternal truth, it is also certain that we cannot err if we hold to the letter of Holy Scripture. He who does not believe this has neither strength and victory in the temptations of the devil, nor comfort in the terrors of death, and must miserably perish.

This is the teaching of Walther that Franz Pieper followed when he said "Certainly not!" — I have read from Prof. David Scaer where he ridiculed Old Missouri on its claim of "no error". But this only proves that he does not believe that the teaching of Holy Scripture is inerrant.

- - - - - - - - - -

      Chemnitz also teaches like the above, see Walther's edition of Baier's Compendium, vol. 3, p. 141-142. An English translation of this book is forthcoming soon.

Why?… is Pieper's name unknown in LC-MS? (Part 4 of 3*)

**** Today is the 95 anniversary of the passing of Dr. Franz Pieper, 

the "Twentieth Century Luther" ****

 

      Continuing from Part 2 (* from 11 years ago!) where I gloried in Pieper's (and Walther's) recounting Luther's famous "Here I Stand..." (on Scripture), I now must return back to Franz Pieper's textbook teaching presented in Part 1, a teaching that perfectly follows THE Reformer, Martin Luther. 

      Franz Pieper captures the spirit of Luther.  But I was left with nagging questions as I first read Pieper's Christian Dogmatics 30 years ago.  This is a lengthy passage from Pieper's work, and I recall reading it as I returned to my Christian faith after falling away... and I had to ask myself some sharp questions...  questions about "the training of my youth". 

      In Part 1, I published Pieper's teaching that takes all Christians back to their roots founded on the Prophets and Apostles... and through the true teachers of the Church, including Augustine, that all point us in that same direction. So as I read Pieper's work 30 years ago, I heavily marked up my copy of the English edition with notes and underlining.  And a question kept coming to my mind: "Why had I not even heard of Franz Pieper in the training of my youth?"  I had heard of "Walther"...  his name was part of the youth organization called the "Walther League", an organization that I wonder was weak at bringing Walther's teaching to the youth of the LC-MS.  The "Walther League" seemed more to follow its first leader Dr. Walter A. Maier than provide a means to learn from the Missouri Synod's first president.  Perhaps someone else could comment more on the "Walther League" than Barb Below did on the "Witness, Mercy, Life Together" blog.  I was never a member of the "Walther League", but an older brother of mine was.  And I don't remember hearing from him of learning any knowledge that he gained from Walther's writings in the "Walther League".  —  But as for hearing the name "Franz Pieper" or "Francis Pieper"?... who was he?  I do not recall ever hearing his name, let alone hearing of his teaching.  I must say that his influence was not completely gone during my confirmation training.  I vaguely recall my Pastor's teaching during confirmation classes that was largely faithful to Luther's Catechism.  And I am deeply indebted to him as I recalled my Lutheran upbringing when I returned to the Christian faith 20 years ago.

But again, why didn't Walter A. Maier or Oswald Hoffmann (speakers for The Lutheran Hour) mention Pieper?  Why wasn't there any mention of Pieper in the many issues of the Lutheran Witness that I read growing up?  Why no mention of Walther or Pieper in the Portals of Prayer booklets that were read daily for our evening devotions after supper?  During the "Rallies" put on by Oswald Hoffmann that our family attended, why no reference to Walther or Pieper?

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

==>> To the Lutheran youth of today (LC-MS and otherwise):

Have you ever heard of "Franz Pieper" in your youth training?... 

Nay, I will go one step further and ask even the oldest Lutheran ADULTS of today:

Did you ever hear the name of Franz Pieper in the training of your youth?

Neither did I 60 years ago.  But why is Pieper's name so unknown? ... even though his textbook was (and is?) a standard textbook for LC-MS pastors ever since he died in 1931.  He is the chief author of the Brief Statement of 1932.  So why don't the pastors even mention his name?  They are happy to mention Wilhelm Loehe.  Many were happy to mention names like Walter A. Maier, Hermann Sasse, C. S. Lewis, etc.  So why are the names of Pieper and Walther largely ignored?  Why are their writings so scarce and so little used?

      Now I know why –  why the name of "Franz Pieper" was so hidden from the laity like me.  It was because the LC-MS that I grew up in had long before begun to leave its heritage.  It was embarrassed at him, it wanted to go in new directions, it wanted to be a part of the world, it wanted to be recognized by the world.  It had no interest in translating the German language heritage of its leaders  Only a small handful of teachers after the death of Pieper carried on his pure legacy.  And so I say that to the extent that the name of "Franz Pieper" has been buried in the LC-MS, that is just how important he is as The Teacher for the Church of Today, for he is The Twentieth Century Luther.

      And so I ask the YOUTH of today: Who would you rather have as your teacher – one who makes you a good contestant for the TV game show "Jeopardy"?... or one who best makes you wise unto salvation? 2 Tim. 3:15?

Franz Pieper, the 20th Century Luther! 

Calov: "The earth is fixed, not that it should be moved…", against Copernicanism

    I ran across this quote while translating the 3 volumes of the Baier-Walther Compendium and had to highlight it as another important Lutheran testimony not just against Copernicanism, but for Holy Scripture. It comes from the writings of the well known Lutheran theologian Abraham Calov. This quote is from volume 2, page 86, translated from the Latin by DeepL, italics in original:

"The earth is fixed, not that it should be moved, either in a circle or by any other means, much less that it should define the seasons by its own motion, which is the office given to the luminaries, but that it should stand firm and immovable. ‘He established the earth upon its foundations; it shall never be moved,’ Ps. 104:5. Although the earth is drawn from the waters and is washed by the waves of water that surround it and tower over it, it is nevertheless founded by divine power so that at no time, until the last day, can it be moved from its place as a whole. Cf. Job 26:7; 38:6-7; Eccl. 1:11. Therefore the Holy Scriptures oppose those who make the planet of the earth, or who constitute the earth as mobile, whether by ascribing to it both daily and annual motion, or either motion, along with Copernicus, Kepler, and Lansberg." (Syst. T. III. art. 5. c. 2. p. 952.)

There are other testimonies along with this one and the reader may want to explore them. — I plan to publish my own machine translations of the 3 volumes of the Baier-Walther Compendium soon. Watch for them.

Walther on Lutherans vs Episcopalians: first congregation's meeting place

      While translating and polishing the text of Walther's essay for the 1883 Western District, I ran across a short explanation of the relationship between Episcopalians and Lutherans. This was also of interest because the first congregation to form among these German Lutheran immigrants first met in an Episcopalian church building, as all histories report. But these histories generally do not report how that relationship ended. In Baepler's Century of Grace p. 33, it was reported that in 1839 

The older Walther serves the congregation which remained in St. Louis and is permitted to worship in the Episcopal Church.

From pp. 36-37 of the original report to the 1883 Western District convention, the younger C.F.W. Walther wrote about this:

It is commonly believed that the Episcopalians are closest to us Lutherans because they have pretty much the same doctrine of Baptism as the divine Word and, at least, do not speak out so decisively in favor of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The fact that they differ from us in their church constitution is considered incidental. But this is not so. What separates us from them, what once separated our first congregation in St. Louis from them, after the Episcopal Church had gladly allowed them to use its church for a time, concerns the great principle of Christianity, according to which we Lutherans grant Christians their full Christian freedom and do not grant any church minister power alongside the power of the Word as a power bestowed by God. 

So we see that the first "Missouri Synod" congregation, when confronted by this disparity of doctrine, had to find another meeting place and could not be seen as in fellowship with the erring Episcopalians. This historical fact should confront today's LC–MS as a word of warning for their pastors acting like the Episcopalians, particularly those associated with the "Gottesdienst" organization.

Lutheran vs Reformed: Walther responds to Reformed Krummacher, 1863

      While re-translating the last of six essays published in the 1933 CPH book What Is Christianity?, I ran across Pieper's reference to an important series of articles that C. F. W. Walther wrote in response to a propaganda article by a German Reformed theologian Emil Wilhelm Krummacher. Here is how Pieper introduces this essay: 

This article, written by Dr. Walther, extends through four issues of L. u. W. (vol. 9, Sept. to Dec. 1863) and is, incidentally, one of the most thorough refutations of the entire Reformed doctrine, insofar as it differs from the Lutheran doctrine.

This is particularly important here in America because of the prominent Reformed influence in this country. Lutherans are typically surrounded by all kinds of churches with different names, "non-denoms", "community" churches, etc., that are all basically Reformed in doctrine. I invite the reader to investigate what Walther wrote, as translated in the English version in the links above. Lutherans will be strengthened in their faith, and have a ready defense against the Reformed around them. (I may polish and publish this series in the future.)

Pieper: "Certainly not!", of deniers of Inspiration

      While reviewing old posts, I ran across a short section from Pieper's essay "Das Fundament" that fulfilled my desire to find the definitive statement by Pieper concerning whether those who deny the Inspiration of Holy Scripture can still be Christians. Here it is in all its forcefulness: 

This raises the question of whether it is still possible for someone to still stand in the Christian faith while denying the divine authority of Holy Scripture. We must say:

 Certainly not

if this denial is given its practical consequence. [emphases mine] Those who do not believe Christ and his Apostles when they testify of the Scriptures: “The Scriptures cannot be broken” [John 10:35] and: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” [2 Tim. 3:16], he will consequently not believe Christ and the Apostles in what they teach about the forgiveness of sins for the sake of the Blood of Christ.

This teaching has caused me to question whether the "Walkout" men of 1974 actually stood in the Christian faith. It has caused me to question whether Prof. Joel Biermann of today's LC–MS stands in the Christian faith. "Certainly not" if their denial goes to its "practical consequence". Prof. Biermann, in his lectures, speaks of Pieper at times as if he was a good teacher, but this would not have been reciprocated by Pieper given the above statement.

AG12: Walther's Lutheran Church Alone Gives All Glory to God (11 essays in one BTL book)

      This concludes from Part AG11b (Table of Contents in Part AG1a) in a series presenting Walther's essays to the Western District that presented his theme "That Only Through the Doctrine of the Lutheran Church is All Glory Given to God Alone". — This series of essays has in many ways covered enough subjects to be considered a Dogmatics textbook that the old Missouri Synod desired so much from Walther, along with Walther's edition of Baier's Compendium. 

      While Franz Pieper did not explicitly refer to any of these essays in his Christian Dogmatics, he did refer to Walther's Baier Compendium 132 times. Since Walther worked on both writings at the same time, so the doctrines of these two teachers are essentially the same.

Download full DOCX file >> HERE <<; PDF file >> HERE <<.

(626 pages)

The advantages of this compilation have been touched on in my series of blog posts:

• All emphasis of wording is retained, while it is sometimes missing in the CPH translations.
• Omitted material has been included, though this is minimal.
• Wording sometimes follows Walther's more closely, although some errors remain.
• Hyperlinks for reference and navigation have been added, especially Luther's writings.

May the reader find as much spiritual benefit as this blogger found in reading and studying these again! Amen!

Excursus 2B: Grok's & Britannica's reports on suppression of the Jesuits by a Pope

      This continues from "Excursus 2A" (Table of Contents in Part AG1a) and follows Walther's 1886 essay in Part AG11b. The following is Walther's quote from the Jesuit Constitution that I first published 2 years ago, in his account of the defection Prof. Ed. Preuss to the Roman Catholic Church:

Thus, for example, in the constitution of the wicked Jesuit mob, [Jesuit gang] is written: “That no determination, explanation, or orders of any kind to live to a commitment can lead to a mortal sin or a venial [forgivable] sin: except when the superior commanded it in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or in the power of obedience. (See the Constitution of the Jesuits, according to the Prague edition, which they themselves provided: Institutum societatis Jesu autoritate congregationis generalis XVIII recusum. Pragae 1757. Vol. I, fol. 414-415 [2025-12-15: "nullas Constitutiones, Declarationes, vel ordinem ullum <page 415> vivendi, posse obligationem ad peccatum mortale vel veniale inducere; nisi Superior ea in Nomine Domini Nostri JESU Christi, vel in virtute Obedientiae juberet"])  The Jesuits themselves refer to this passage in the index of this edition under the title: “Obedientia et obedire” as the determination of their principle: “The superiors can make it binding to sin in the power of obedience, if this brings many benefits”.

Now many writers, even Lutheran theologians, will largely deny Walther's reporting, certainly most of the narrative on much of the Internet defending the Order of Jesuits (or the "Society of Jesus" so-called). But I would publish what the AI tool from Elon Musk, Grok, gave as the "answer" when I gave it the following text: "Pope Clement XIV said, when he signed the Bull of Suppression: 'I am signing my death warrant.'" (with my comments inserted in red text):

Authenticity of the Quote

The quote appears in some 19th-century historical accounts [an admission that there were "historical accounts" of this], often [but not always] in anti-Jesuit or sensationalist sources, portraying the pope as reluctantly sacrificing himself for peace while fearing Jesuit retaliation [again an admission of these "historical accounts".]. However, it is likely [but possibly not] apocryphal or legendary rather than verifiable from contemporary records. Reliable modern sources (e.g., Catholic Encyclopedia, Britannica, scholarly histories) do not confirm [or deny] he uttered these exact words, though they describe his deep reluctance, remorse, and fear in his final years. [So non-papist sources "Britannica, scholarly histories" report this pope's "fear in his final years". What fear would he have from the state leaders if he followed their directions? But he would naturally fear the Jesuits because they were the ones being suppressed!]

This report by Grok is unlike Google Gemini's outright denial (see Excursus 2A) that there was such a statement made.  Here is what Britannica reports on the "suppression" Pope Clement XIV, in part (emphasis mine):

Fearing that France and Spain would resort to open schism, he finally yielded and on July 21, 1773, issued the brief Dominus ac Redemptor (“Lord and Saviour”) dissolving the Society of Jesus, which from its inception had dedicated itself to the service of the pope. Clement asserted that he did so because the Society could no longer attain its original ends and because he wanted peace within the church. The suppression lasted until 1814. Clement lived his last year in ill health, remorse, depression, and dread of assassination.

So we see that even with the "toned down" modern reporting of these events, Walther's reporting is not far from the truth. But those who understand the actual "spirituality" of the Jesuit Order (see Excursus 2A) will know that they are utterly to be condemned for their "exception clause" giving superior Jesuits the power to command others to sin if there are sufficient "benefits".

      In the concluding Part AG12, we combine all 11 essays from 1873 to 1886 into one complete book, and provide a download to another "BTL book".