LDJ–Pt 27(p 78-80)—Medical? Feelings? 3rd Use Law; Judicial action

     This continues from the previous Part 26 presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's seminal essay in 1859 (see Part 1 for Table of Contents).  In this Part 27, Endnotes [E], [F], [G], and [H] are covered.
     How well Walther distinguishes The Lutheran Difference from the papists in general, Jesuits, Enthusiasts, etc.  I am reminded of the sect called the "Shakers", a group known in part by their woodworking.  But their name speaks volumes about them, doesn't it?  Could it indicate their "enthusiasm" in their "spirit", a "spirit" quite apart from the Holy Spirit?  Walther speaks of how they rely on their "shaky feelings" instead of the "eternally constant Word".  Even though the world would call them "Protestants", they weren't. They (along with Methodism) are Enthusiasts.
     There is a great concern in today's Lutheranism that the real problem in today's church could be solved by the Third Use of the Law.  Essays and papers are given on this subject, but Walther points us to the best teacher there is on the subject — Martin Luther.  If a theologian cannot proclaim the pure Gospel properly distinguished from the Law, then he knows absolutely nothing of the Third Use.
    Underlining follows Walther's emphasis in original.  Hypertext links have been copiously added for reference to original sources and on several subjects.  Highlighting is mine.

= = = = = = = = = = = =  Part 27: Pages 78-80 (1880)  = = = = = = = = = = = =

(cont'd from Part 26)

The Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.

[by C.F.W. Walther]

[1880-78] [W1859-55]  

[E] The most simple-minded Christian will readily recognize the voice of the Antichrist in the main symbol of papists, in the decisions of the Council of Trent, when here no justification is recognized that consists only in forgiveness of the sinner by imputation of the merit of Christ, but only such an imaginary justification as supposedly consists in the fact that one has a new heart, is devout, and has love and good works.  So teaches the papal church still teaches at the present day.  Because although a Jesuit may now also say [Essays1-57] that one is justified by grace alone, so this means to him nothing else as that  Christ is the cause that man can become virtuous.  He preaches thereby basically nothing more than the old pagan doctrine.  Thereafter justification would not be a judicial action, after which God sees the poor sinner, for Christ's sake, as has he no sin; but rather a medical action, after which God works over man’s heart, senses, and mind for the treatment.  Since justification in the latter sense should happen according to the measure of one’s own acquired holiness, so certainly can no one thereby become sure of his state of grace, whereas by the pure doctrine no measurement is spoken of, rather God makes us all equally holy and just by imputation of the merit that Christ won for us.  — Here one can rightly see how the Enthusiasts are basically as much like the papists as one egg is like the other, in which only their way of speaking is different.  Enthusiasts comfort no sinner if he does not first say that his heart has been changed.  For them the sanctification comes from the justification just so little as the papist, but it is to them the same reason.  If the Spirit of God is not also there where they prevail, prove faithful and finally yet lead at least a few to Christ, so there could not one soul be saved.  

Indeed he sects differ from the papists in that they want to be certain of their state of grace: however hereby they come here again entirely back to the [1880-79] papistic principle of justification, since they do not base their certainty on the eternally constant Word, but on their own shaky feelings, wherefore they are either hypocrites or often must complain that they have lost Christ.  Hence also their efforts by all sorts of means excite their feelings their emotions and that the cheerful today boasts often one or the other of his conversion, and yet so soon without comfort must step up again to the mourners’ bench.  As no heathen attains the Holy Spirit except through God’s Word, so also all who really have Him, originally obtained Him only through the Word;  to separate Him from it and rely on having the Holy Spirit without the Word is extremely sad and means nothing otherwise than the testimony of the Spirit lost again.

[F] Also therein are the Methodists, etc., like the papists in that they say that the justified can keep the commandments of God.  If the pertinent remarks of the Council of Trent were presented to them, without them knowing where they came from, they would declare them to be pure doctrine.  The only difference is that the papists are better than they at supporting this false doctrine with spurious reasons.  But, of course, only with spurious reasons.  Since when they say that God demands of us nothing that we cannot perform, indeed that he has no right to do this, it is indeed true that he demands nothing but what we could do if we had kept [W1859-56] what he gave us at Creation;  but now, after we have fallen, should God have less right herein than a creditor who confronts debtors with his demands though he probably already knows well that they are unable to pay — merely to remind them of their debt and bring them to a confession of it?  Just so false is their proof from Matt. 11:30, because here the yoke and the burden, as Luther also proves, are not the Law, but the cross of the believers.  To the Christian as a Christian, to be sure, also [1880-80] the Law is light, not only so far as Christ has fulfilled it for him, but also because his own whole life is a fulfilling of the Law, flowing unbidden from faith: but so far as the Christian still has his flesh, the Law remains for him an unbearable burden. Love is the fulfilling of the Law [Romans 13:10]; but we indeed find within us no perfect love, rather at most drops of it.  Christ, as Christ and as Savior, does not lay on us the Law: he is not a lawgiver, but only an interpreter of it, and that also not after his true office, but rather  — as indeed also Moses goes on in his prophecy of Christ — performing, as it were, a function not really His own. — That he meanwhile does so interpret the Law, provides us with a splendid proof for the third use of the Law, according to which it should be a rule for the lives of the children of God.

[G] A further likeness of the Methodists and the papists is that Holy Baptism is for those as for these only a ship (that breaks up later) for the start of the journey to heaven, but a person’s own repentance is the second plank, whereon they want to reach it.

[H] Oh, what a world of difference there is between the papists’ absolution and ours!  We say: ‘God has in Christ already absolved all sinners; the pastor — as well as everyone else who consoles the sinner with the Gospel — brings him only this absolution, and whoever believes this, has it.  To the papists, it is quite different. As surely as there is true remorse, true confession, true works of satisfaction, true ordination of the priest, etc., so certain become the sins forgiven.  That means, however, that no one is certain, as no one can ever be certain whether in all these parts everything is ordered and quite perfect.  Everything is built here on man, so on sand, on mud.  Hereby is also not to lose sight of the fact that a distinction is to be made between absolution and indulgence. [1880-81]

= = = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 28  = = = = = = = = =

How much more simply can it be said of a true Lutheran than this:  As Lutherans,

We say: ‘God has in Christ already absolved all sinners; the pastor — as well as everyone else who consoles the sinner with the Gospel — brings him only this absolution, and whoever believes this, has it.

I confess:  if the forgiveness or absolution spoken to me does not include all sinners (universal) and that it is already existing in God's heart (objective), then I am going to hell.
In the next Part 28...

LDJ–Pt 26 (p 75-77)—MacKenzie's shame, Walther's glory

     This continues from the previous Part 25 presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's seminal essay in 1859 (see Part 1 for Table of Contents).  This Part 26 finishes Endnote [B] and continues on to Endnotes [C] and [D].  Walther relates Luther's experience before the great Holy Roman Emperor in the "Diets" of Germany:

On that he writes that the mighty emperor Charles, whose kingdom was so great that the sun did not set on his lands, and all the emperors and princes of the whole world should let stand our church and its basic doctrine [Justification]; and therefore he defies them before their eyes, without any other weapon than God’s Word. All world and church history gives us no example of similar courage.  

How was it that Prof. Cameron A. MacKenzie (of CTS-Fort Wayne, professor of Church History) could "praise" Walther (and Luther) on Walther’s Bicentennial... by essentially condemning Walther's praise of Luther?  Or is Prof. MacKenzie jealous of the rich measure of the Holy Spirit endowed to Luther... and Walther?  MacKenzie's essay is especially disgusting for its almost complete lack of any measure of the Holy Spirit.  I can hardly convince myself to repeat MacKenzie's awful statement:

"Walther is long gone and so is his whole approach to Martin Luther as hero." — Prof. Cameron A. MacKenzie

Maybe Prof. MacKenzie is thanking his "lucky stars" that he has such a wealth of knowledge that he can judge Walther and Luther!  So this essay by Walther apparently means nothing to Prof. MacKenzie, but it does mean something to all Christians, for it was C.F.W. Walther who uncovered again Luther's Reformation in our modern times, in spite of those like MacKenzie who would bury it again.  Could MacKenzie's teaching be exactly the "cold teaching" that Chemnitz warned the Lutheran Church about?  Ah, but maybe Walther is not "long gone" and maybe "his whole approach to Martin Luther as hero" never really went away... except in his LC-MS?  Could it even be that one of today's great enemies of the Gospel is ... MacKenzie's own LC-MS?
    Underlining follows Walther's emphasis in original.  Hypertext links have been copiously added for reference to original sources and on several subjects.  Highlighting is mine.

= = = = = = = = = = = =  Part 26: Pages 75-77 (1880)  = = = = = = = = = = = =

(cont'd from Part 25)

The Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.

[by C.F.W. Walther]

If we compel the doctrine of justifying faith in this way, it will [1880-75] become evident that the sects (Methodists, followers of [Jacob] Albright [Albrechtsleute, see Evangelical Association], etc.) are the bitterest enemies of the doctrine of justification, and that we will really begin to bear the reproach of Christ and will be [Essays1-56] persecuted as the most horrible seducers that ever walked the earth, just as Luther also testifies that blood was first shed on earth because of this doctrine and so indeed also the last will certainly flow over of it.  Both the Pietists of earlier times as well as the so-called “modern theologians” often show how hard this doctrine is can be seen in that they teach it purely in itself, but then in the application and the many warnings, – indeed not to access it before one has first found oneself especially prepared in many respects – they take back from aggrieved sinners all that was given, as if the thirsty one were first offered delicious grapes and then given a shock when he now wants to take them.  Where else does the resistance to the comforting doctrine of absolution come from, as today the opposition goes on and on, except since they have not grasped our main article?  God grant that our proceedings on this subject might be the trumpet to awaken the hearts of many also among ourselves, so that we may smite us on the forehead and realize how we ourselves are still so clouded over in it and how, though indeed by the grace of God we have been led on the right road from the beginning of the existence of our Synod, but still here are many previously unsuspected treasures. By our fathers at the time of the Reformation, God already had them drawn from the mine of the Word.  He does not show such a grace twice.  Therefore, if we do not want to draw from the them, and especially from Luther, so we will have to starve.  As God gives food to a child through its father, and it must perish if it does not want to take it from him: so God has entrusted the Bread of Life to our father Luther therewith to feed us.  If we despise this grace of [1880-76] God and want be a Luther ourselves, so we must waste away.

[C] One can see in Luther so purely what it means to have a solid heart, of which our unionistic time so does not know anything.  He confers all, however high, glorious, great and powerful they are, to the devil, as soon as they argue against our doctrine of justification, and namely, as he says, from “inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”  Such courage only a [one?]  [W1859-54] man can have, who who has been given a rich measure of the Holy Spirit.  Whom else can be found one who had, in addition to joyfulness of heart, such formidable earnestness and holy wrath?!  Remember that Luther wrote this when all papal powers had conspired to exterminate Luther and our church.  On that he writes that the mighty emperor Charles, whose kingdom was so great that the sun did not set on his lands, and all the emperors and princes of the whole world should let stand our church and its basic doctrine; and therefore he defies them before their eyes, without any other weapon than God’s Word.  The whole of world and church history gives us no example of a similar courage. Indeed the tyrants would have brought him to the stake if God had not held their hands, — if he would not have needed him as the Reformer. Everyone else would have been torn in such circumstances into a thousand pieces.  Luther himself was in spirit on the funeral pyre for nearly 30 years, whose death he would have endured with gladness and rejoicing: but it was not God’s will that he should teach by his death at first, but in and through his life.  But as he kept the field against his enemies only because the doctrine of justification lived in his heart, and he accordingly taught it ever and again: so also our Synod can be victorious against the sects and all other enemies only if a fire, lit by a correct  [1880-77] knowledge of the doctrine of justification, starts to flare up in us as it burned in dear Luther.

[D]  It is a consolation for our time, though a sad one that Luther complains about the terrible lack of a right knowledge of our article already in his lifetime and in the middle of the Lutheran Church, that even in 1530, also the year of the handing over of the Augsburg Confession, he testified that only very few understood it rightly, while although most pastors could indeed thoroughly scold very well against the popes and the priests, it was at best that they managed to fall into an expression of the doctrine of justification correctly and they spoke of it like a dream.  With all [his] complaints about the blatant contempt for this doctrine, Luther nevertheless, after being very mercifully freed from the papal yoke, was willing to teach and preach it with all his might till his death—and indeed, you know, faithfully did so. It is fitting for us to note this to our salutary shame. We—alas!—only too often want to hold back the full comfort of the Gospel from our congregations when we are faced with a lack of fruit from it; then the poor people must remain lying in their misery, and no more help is for them.  We often still lack the proper compassion and love of Christ for these poor souls that Luther abundantly had that he neither would nor could hide the riches of divine grace, although and precisely because his heart was ready to break because of the prevailing contempt of these riches.  It is also strange how fearfully his prophecy was fulfilled that after his death things would come to the point at which none of the Wittenberg theologians would remain faithful to the true doctrine of justification.  Especially it is to be remembered finally that Chemnitz, deeply moved by Luther’s complaints, cites negligent learning and cold teaching of this article as the reason for its eclipse and its final downfall. [1880-78] [W1859-55]

= = = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 27  = = = = = = = = =

Walther speaks thus of Luther:

...he kept the field against his enemies only because the doctrine of justification lived in his heart  and he accordingly taught it ever and again:

But Walther wasn't interested in just old history, he was interested in the same "here and now" teaching that President Matthew Harrison claims for himself.  So what was the "here and now" teaching that Walther was interested in:

...so also our Synod can be victorious against the sects and all other enemies only if a fire, lit by a correct knowledge of the doctrine of justification, starts to flare up in us as it burned in dear Luther.

It seems Luther's enemies are still on the field, but the (Lutheran) Doctrine of Justification is still holding the field against them... and only through LDJ.  Will you, dear reader, not follow Luther and believe God at His Word?  Would you not let that fire flare up in you knowing that God is already reconciled to you? (2 Cor. 5:20)  If Walther's testimony is not enough, would you listen to Martin Chemnitz, the Second Martin, on this as Walther relates:

...Chemnitz, deeply moved by Luther’s complaints, cites negligent learning and cold teaching of this article [of justification] as the reason for its eclipse and its final downfall.

And finally, Walther today sets before the Lutheran Church a choice:

If we despise this grace of God and want be a Luther ourselves, so we must waste away.

Do you hear Walther speaking to us? ==>> Don't waste away... go Back To Luther!

In the next Part 27...

LDJ–Pt 25 (p72-74)—Antinomianism; Reformation Age... again? Essay ends, Endnotes begin

     This continues from the previous Part 24 presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's seminal essay in 1859 (see Part 1 for Table of Contents).  In this Part 25, Walther finishes the main portion of his essay with a bang (read on).  And he says this at the end of a footnote, quite a fortuitous statement:

But since it is not the essayist’s [Walther] issue to show how justification is to be rightly preached, he breaks off this matter, leaving the solution of this important task to one more experienced and to another time.

==>> Dear Prof. Walther, there was no one more experienced than you and it was you who later taught us The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel. [text here]
     Then begins the Endnotes section and I will hyperlink each endnote to its original section.  Endnotes [A] and [B] are in this section.  These Endnotes are pure Walther even though they are presented in a format of a "discussion".  Wherever Walther was in attendance at any convention of the old (German) Missouri Synod, or at any ecumenical discussions (e.g. Pastoral Conferences), you can be absolutely certain the essay and discussions that ensued were trustworthy whether they were presented by Walther or another person.  Why?  Because Walther would never let bad theology or unclear statements be published without correction.
     Contained in this section is a footnote where Walther answers the so-called Antinomians, or those who would do away with the preaching of the Law.  Walther's caution against Antinomians trumps all of today's theologians who purport to defend against this error.  Why?  Because Walther (and Luther) taught the pure sweet Gospel properly distinguished from the Law... and so when Walther preached the Law, it was presented for its true spiritual purpose - it killeth. (2 Cor. 3:6)

    Underlining follows Walther's emphasis in original.  Hypertext links have been copiously added for reference to original sources and on several subjects.  Highlighting is mine.

= = = = = = = = = = = =  Part 25: Pages 72-74 (1880)  = = = = = = = = = = = =

(cont'd from Part 24)

The Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.

[by C.F.W. Walther]

the pure doctrine of justification [1880-72] as the root, the central point, and the crown of all doctrine. (*) [Endnote W] [W1859-52]

2. On the part of the listeners, however, it will be necessary above all that they be introduced to this pure pasture of the sweet Gospel, which alone makes one willing and cheerful for good works, also in particular that they be established in Luther’s writings and have awakened within them the joy of reading the same, the understanding of them

–––––––––––––––

*) Hereby, we finally notice,  it is in no way meant that also the Law should not and must not be preached in all its sharpness, rather the pure doctrine of justification puts such preaching ahead, without which preaching of the Law it can not be pure at all.  The justification preached in the fullness of its comfort is in no way the saltless sweetish Herrnhutish [see Moravian Church] playing with comforting features of the Gospel. In fact, even the constant prominence of comforting [truths] is not the essence of pure, uncurtailed preaching of the doctrine of justification.  Not every preacher can, given the differing natures of the congregations, give consolation to the same extent as Luther did in his early writings.  He speaks of this himself as follows: “Therefore the antinomians (Law strikers) justly deserve to have everyone hostile towards them as they would try to remain and defend with our example; even though it is manifest why we taught about God’s  [Essays1-55] grace in the beginning as we did.  The cursed pope had fully suppressed poor consciences with his man-made traditions, had taken away all true means, help, and comfort with which poor, fearful hearts might have been saved from despair: what, then, should we have done at that time other than again to raise up the oppressed and burdened hearts and hold out true consolation?  But we also know well that one must speak differently to those who are flush, tender and fat.  At that time we were all cast out and exceedingly miserable.  The water in the bottle was gone, that is, there was no comfort available. We were lying there dying, just like Ishmael under the shrub.  Therefore we needed such teachers who presented the grace of God to us and taught us how we might be refreshed. But the antinomians would have it that one must begin the doctrine of repentance simply with grace; but I myself did not proceed in this manner.  For I well knew that Ishmael was first driven out and despondent before he was comforted by an angel.  Therefore I followed that example and comforted no one except only those who first felt remorse and sorrow for their sin and had despaired of themselves, whom the Law had frightened, whom Leviathan had crushed and totally stunned.” (On Gen. 21:15-16, [Walch vol. 1, cols 2144-2145, paragrs. 174-176; StL Ed. vol 1, cols. 1428-1429, paragrs 2144-2145; cf. Am. Ed. vol. 4, 50 f.])  But since it is not the essayist’s issue to show how justification is to be rightly preached, he breaks off this matter, leaving the solution of this important task to one more experienced and to another time.

––––––––––––

[1880-73] be conveyed and developed, be shown, without exception, the essential distinction and advantage between them and all other human devotional tracts, and pointed to the proper use of the treasures contained therein of luminous knowledge and deep Christian experience.

The essayist does not doubt that if this happens, not only would soon return to its members the faded consciousness that the Evangelical Lutheran Church alone has been entrusted with the pure doctrine of Justification, but with the return thereof by the repossession of this most precious doctrinal jewel, the blessing would be renewed like the age of the Reformation which was so rich, comparable only with that of the apostles.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

There were in-depth discussions, whose summary is included in the following on the reading of each point.  Everyone will readily see that the Synod did not only let Luther, etc., speak, but that the presenter’s own heart has played a part.  The well-disposed reader will want to remember that in such a completely open conference the comments on this or that point in the essay often anticipated what really belonged to one of the following points.  Still it will be dear to many and they will be served toward better understanding by the fact that we have shown through back and forth  looking references with roman letters, the points of the essay referred to by the relevant comments.

[A] It is mostly a matter of tradition to praise the article of justification by faith alone as the main doctrine: but very few fully appreciate the wealth of wonderful testimonies of our fathers on this point and the incomparable confession contained therein; yes, for the most part they do not understand what justifying [1880-74] faith is, and often take the word faith for the whole Christian religion, as everyone imagines it in his own way.  If the sects read these testimonies, so they agree well with the praise of faith, but they take their devotion, their feelings, and their activity to be faith, while Luther by it understands nothing else than the sole vision towards God’s promises and seizing and appropriating them, despite the fact that the heart sees nothing but sin and wrath, death and damnation, but he understands the faith of the sects as a dream and foam faith.  We ourselves are far from understanding the pertinent testimonies in their full power, so that we have continued to study on it, how Luther drew forth this article of justification from the well of God’s Word, where he will then become so new to us again every day, as if we never heard him before. [W1859-53]

[B] One often does not know why Luther calls the article of justifying faith difficult, which nevertheless seems so easy to many; but such one does not understand Luther.  For many it may, through God’s grace, not be so difficult to have a good sermon on justification: but Luther speaks here about the whole nature and way of treating the work of Christ in such a way that not only every other doctrine is influenced by the doctrine of justification, but that it appears as its necessary component.  That is hard — so hard that no fanatical spirit, no one who does not have the Holy Spirit can somehow do it.  Incidentally to note, we can and should learn from this to judge Luther differently than it usually happens today, since in many cases what is called his weakness is just his strength. — Luther wants to know all other doctrines drawn from the depths of the doctrine of justification; whatever does not flow from it is for him a shameful denial of Christ.  If we compel the doctrine of justifying faith in this way, it will [1880-75] become evident that the sects (Methodists, followers of [Jacob] Albright [Albrechtsleute, see Evangelical Association], etc.)...

= = = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 26  = = = = = = = = =

So many quotes to take from this section. The editor of this essay's publication injected this comment as he spoke for his Missouri Synod about the essayist Walther:

Everyone will readily see that the Synod did not only let Luther, etc., speak, but that the presenter’s own heart has played a part.

This statement shows that the old (German) Missouri Synod knew that the essayist Walther who stood before them had a heart like that of Martin Luther himself.  Yes, even the glorious splendor of the age of the Reformation was returning before their very eyes and ears.  No wonder President Wyneken was so thrilled at Walther's essay as he extolled it in his speech before the 1860 Synod convention (see here). — Later on Walther said this:

...we can and should learn ... to judge Luther differently than it usually happens today, since in many cases what is called his weakness is just his strength.

Are you listening, editors at CPH and editors Mayes and Brown of the American Edition of Luther's Works?
In the next Part 26...

LDJ–Part 24 (p 69-71)—Teachers have lost it (proper distinction); comfort for dying days

     This continues from the previous Part 23 presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's seminal essay in 1859 (see Part 1 for Table of Contents).  In this Part 24, Walther finishes his quote from Johann Gerhard against the Reformed and Calvinism and then begins his own analysis of the sorry state of affairs even within the Lutheran Church.  Now Walther is speaking directly to us in our "modern" world...  here is how he begins his "Part II":

How is it that the consciousness that the Evangelical Lutheran Church alone is entrusted with the pure doctrine of justification is often faded away even within this our church?

The short answer to this question is: Because most of the teachers of the same have themselves lost this gem.

How damning is that?  When the teachers have lost it, then all the "catechization" that President Lawrence Rast of CTS-FW promotes as the answer to the problems in the LC-MS is for nothing...  Read on for more on Walther's analysis of (and solutions for) today's problem in the Lutheran Church.

     Underlining follows Walther's emphasis in original.  Hypertext links have been copiously added for reference to original sources and on several subjects.  Highlighting is mine.

= = = = = = = = = = = =  Part 24: Pages 69-71 (1880)  = = = = = = = = = = = =

(cont'd from Part 23)

The Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.

[by C.F.W. Walther]

But from this they have removed and outlawed the sacramental union of the body and blood [1880-69] of Christ long ago and only kept a figurative presence, i.e., only lets remain the presence of a far, far absent body of Christ.  

Or to the goodness of Christ the Mediator?  But they hold so sure that same is present for us only according to His divine nature (which is a consuming fire), but that the human nature of Christ, according to which He is our Brother, is as far distant from us as the [W1859-50] highest heaven is from the lowest earth.  

Or to the feeling of faith?  But the feeling of faith often disappears in our hearts, especially in time of temptation.  The distressed one will therefore conclude: I don’t feel faith, so I do not have faith, therefore God doesn’t want that I have faith, so I am  in the number of the reprobate.

Or to the hallmarks of faith?  But what hallmarks are cited by the opponents as signs of faith can also be pointed out in those who have fallen from the grace of God; but, now, according to the assumption of the opponents, the latter have never had the true faith;  so no one can be sure that he has the true faith of the elect.  [Essays1-54]

Or to the office of the Word and the Sacraments?  But the distressed one will answer from Beza: He offends against God which holds that God either to men by whose mouth God speaks, or to the outward Word of God itself, or the sacramental signs even the slightest part of this His divine truth for the renewal of people and for their preservation ascribes to eternal life in Christ.   If we want, hence, that the purity of the heavenly doctrine and the basis of our faith remain unscathed, we may absolutely not allow dreaming of religious co-mingling, or disguise these heresies as unimportant, but must defend the truth with all our power.” (Loci theologici, Locus de bonis operibus. Epist. dedicator.)  [Endnote Q]

[1880-70]

II.

How is it that the consciousness that the Evangelical Lutheran Church alone is entrusted with the pure doctrine of justification is often faded away even within this our church?

The short answer to this question is: Because most of the teachers of the same have themselves lost this gem.

1. A portion of them still pay homage namely to the vulgar rationalism and the Pelagian so-called supernaturalism.  [Endnote R]

2. Another part preaches a modified Christianity with many principles of modern philosophy and, in consequence of that, newly warmed over with all sorts of rehashed old heresies.  [Endnote S]

3. A third part has drunk from the cup of delirium with the spirit of unionism of our time and, intoxicated by it, this part considers purity of doctrine unimportant and sets true Christianity [1] in a love that is not zealous for the truth, even indifferent to it, and [2] in external common works for the extension of the kingdom of God and for remedying also certain carnal distresses of our time.  [Endnote T]

4. A fourth part seeks salvation in fanatical excitement of feelings through all sorts of new measures in contempt of God’s means of grace.  [Endnote U]

5. A fifth part consists of those who have indeed recognized the ungodly nature of unionism (der Union), but now, in opposition to the Reformed, instead of on the pure doctrine of justification, lays the main stress on outward ecclesiasticism, on the visibility of the true church, on its ceremonies, orders, and constitution, on the office of the ministry as [W1859-51] a special level generated by ordination [1880-71] and its privileged intermediation of grace, on the effect of the sacraments ex opere operato (i.e., by the mere use apart from faith), and so forth. And in part, besides all this, they either are themselves given to various favorite errors that have become fashionable in our time among the so-called “faithful,” e.g., chiliasm, the hades doctrine [see LuW 1871 Oct., Nov. Dec.; pgs 289 ff.], etc., or at least want particularly these heresies to be tolerated in the church as relating to open questions [see LuW April 1868 pgs 100 ff.], and not infrequently in a driven way try to create and preserve (treiberisch) a legalistic godliness. [Endnote V]

III.

What measures should be taken to wake up that lost consciousness again?

Should that consciousness come to life again in our church, so it is necessary:

1. On the part of the servants of the church, that they before all study diligently, next to God’s Word and especially the epistles of Paul, the precious Confessions of our church with humble and heartfelt desire for knowledge of the pure evangelical truth; and, among all our fathers in instruction, to choose Luther, in order to learn from him, with fervent invocation for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, the true preaching of the righteousness that is valid before God and, what is most dearly connected thereto, the proper distinction between Law and Gospel; and then, that they, the pastors, proving all faithfulness in this better knowledge thus attained by God’s grace, untiringly compel the pure doctrine of justification as the basic and chief doctrine, imprint it in their hearers, and conform all their sermons, catechism instruction, private teaching, exhortations, punishments, consolations, counseling, in short, their whole care of souls and congregational leadership to the pure doctrine of justification [1880-72] as the root, the central point, and the crown of all doctrine. *)  [Endnote W] [W1859-52]

= = = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 25  = = = = = = = = =

What measures does Walther recommend to wake up a slumbering Lutheran Church:

1. Study the Confessions; 
2. choose Luther above all teachers of our Church to follow; and 
3. thereby learn the proper distinction between Law and Gospel.  And then apply it to all the souls under their care.  

Good advice for:

• Norma Muench at CPH – now you can read the whole essay that I recommended to you before.
• President Lawrence Rast at CTS-FW – here is the better answer from Walther to the problems of your LC-MS than your simple "catechization" answer.
• Harold Senkbeil of Doxology.us – to replace your useless and harmful psychology based pastoral training.
• Prof. (emeritus) Robert Kolb – do you still think psychology and sociology can stand up to the pure teaching of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification? (lecture video at 16:14 - 16:36 mark)
• President Matthew Harrison – here is the answer to your great need for "here and now" teaching.
• Pastor Klemet Preus (son of Robt. Preus) – in your dying days, don't these measures that Walther recommends for the Lutheran Church confirm what you seem to say in your writings?  ...where Walther says "that the pure doctrine of justification is the root, the central point, and the crown of all doctrine"?... that there is indeed no reason to doubt John 3:16?  Don't they comfort you in your dying days?

Yes indeed! It is good advice... for me! ... for all eternity!  In the next Part 25...