This continues from Part 6 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. — In this segment, Walther continues his narrative on Luther and the Bible, and clears away all foggy thinking of today's modern theologians.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets [] and in red font are my additions. Underlining and bold follow Walther.
(continued from Part 6)
(continued from Part 6)
Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, February 1886, p. 34-36: "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther
Far from it, that such tremendous testimonies of faith (page 35) from Luther in the divinity of all of Holy Scripture should discourage the modern-believing [moderngläubigen] theologians. Nay, with Luther as their predecessor, their authority to obscure their fall from the Bible and mislead the believing Christians in their faith, they declare such sayings of Luther, like those cited, to be heroic, hyperbolic, “thwarted” by opposite expressions (Kahnis), sayings [apophthgemata], which one should not press.
Luther but assumed that inspiration was taken for granted, but “without a theory about it to set up” (Luthardt) and “without further discussion of the relationship of both factors in the development of the Holy Scripture acting together” (of the divine and the human) “and without limitation of the scope in which the Scripture is inspired” (Cremer). But these gentlemen know very well that Luther already came upon his doctrine of inspiration; they also bear witness to this themselves. Therefore it was not necessary to oppose the Papacy with an elaborate, systematically ordered “theory” of inspiration. Already in 1519 Luther says exactly what he must concede to the papists in this respect, and to what he accuses them of. In his well-known exposition of the 22nd of the First Psalms 22 on the words: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.” (Ps. 22:18 [Lutherbibel - Ps. 22:19]), with reference to John 19:24. “They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,”
Luther writes as follows: “They confess all this, which the Lord Christ says, John 10:35: “The Scripture cannot be broken”, and their power, might and authority must be unchecked, which one must not contradict, nor deny or negate. 1) They confess it and say it consistently and peacefully,
 |
| "Guide: divine Scripture" |
——————
1) Therefore Melanchthon, in his Preface to the Augsburg Confession, without fear of contradiction, could also call that doctrine the only right one which is “guided by divine Holy Scripture” when he writes there: “Therefore, in obedience to Your Imperial Majesty's wishes, we offer, in this matter of religion, the Confession of our preachers and of ourselves, showing what manner of doctrine on the basis of the divine Holy Scriptures (ex scripturis sanctis et puro verbo Dei) has been up to this time set forth.” (Book of Concord, Müller, p 36, § 8. [Book of Concord.org here; Triglotta p. 39]) Thus, in the struggle against those who actually denied the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the worst papistical zealots were on Luther's side.
To give just one instance of this, when Erasmus attributed a mistake of memory to the Evangelist in Matthew 27, Dr. Johann Eck wrote in a letter addressed to him in 1518: “By those words you seem to imply that the evangelists, like people in general have written, and have written this down relying on their memory, neglecting to look at the books, and, because of this, made mistakes. Hear, my Erasmus, do you think that a Christian will patiently accept that the evangelists have made mistakes in the Gospels? If the authority of the (page 36) Holy Scripture wavers, what other part will then be without suspicion of errancy, as Augustine concludes with such a beautiful argument? You also say that they have relied on their memory as if they had written what they had previously read from and kept in their memory, asking them, they who were commanded not to even think about what they should say before kings and princes, [Matt. 10:18] but who should be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth! [John 16:13] And such testimonies, you say, have not been borrowed from books; as if, as we do now in this way make books from other various books and authors, they too have put together their writing! Far be it, to suspect this of the disciples of the Holy Spirit and our Savior Jesus, those pillars of our faith that were not instructed in human wisdom! He accepted them as academically uneducated and ignorant, but made them the greatest scholars.” (Cited by Quenstedt in his Theol. didactico-polem. I, c. 4. p. 2. q. 5. fol. m. 117)
all with each other: ‘Let us not divide’, but soon, when one wants to go further and conclude further, then the soldiers make a great laughingstock out of Scripture with such freedom and audacity to gloss and to distinguish, that is, to interpret and to differentiate, that they diminish, reduce, and even nullify the whole of Scripture’s force and authority.” (IV, 1763, § 245. Cf.. pp. 1763 - 1769. [On Psalm 22:19 – StL 4, 1306 f. § 245; not in Am. Ed.])
It is true, however, that Luther did not formulate a theory about the doctrine of inspiration anywhere in his writings, and that he never professionally dealt with this doctrine and systematically developed it.
 |
| 17th Century Lutheran Orthodoxy Builders using Luther's blocks |
But as in the subject of several other doctrines, Luther had already provided the necessary building blocks to build also the doctrine of inspiration, that then the dogmatists of the 17th century have composed it into a harmonious whole. There is no essential aspect in the doctrine of inspiration of our systematicians that could not be substantiated by Luther's clear statements.
Let us then, for the following main aspects of the doctrine of inspiration of our dogmatists, obtain the evidence from Luther's writings.
= = = = = = = = = = continued in Part 8 = = = = = = = = = = =
John 10:35: “a great laughingstock”, papists & the LC-MS
 |
| Prof. Martin Franzmann: "There are none" |
One of the great jewels of Walther's citations of Luther above is where he points out that the teaching of John 10:35 was supposedly agreed doctrine by the papists. But Luther saw through their duplicity, that their "agreement" was superficial, that when one wanted to "conclude further", i.e. to teach doctrine, then the "soldiers [papists] make a great laughingstock out of Scripture." Today the LCMS no longer uses this Bible verse, as Luther, Walther, Pieper, Engelder, and Klug did. No, one searches in vain among today's "papists"… the teachers and leaders of the LCMS who are much worse. The noted ELCA theologian Dr. Martin E. Marty revealed in a Sept. 27, 1972 Christian Century editorial (text) that a “stalwart conservative exegete”, in answer to the Synod president's question in 1959: “Which texts do prove this doctrine, then?”, said:
“There are none.”
Franzmann's "exegesis" in 1959 that stripped away the simple meaning of John 10:35 was confirmed in 1964 in Concordia Theological Monthly by Prof. Richard Jungkuntz († 2003) in his essay “An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34-36”. But Luther said the papists at least held to the wider meaning of John 10:35, as it reads. Not so the LCMS. [2019-03-14: 1965 LCMS Convention Proceedings, p. 252, included overture 2-48 M to relieve Dr. Jungkuntz of his post on CTCR.]
Prof. Frederick Danker: LCMS “Jester”
Especially descriptive of the opponents of the Reformation is Luther's charge that the papists made "a laughingstock out of Scripture". But today, the "soldiers" who make "a great laughingstock out of Scripture" are the teachers of LCMS pastors. In the book published by Prof. Frederick Danker († 2012) No Room in the Brotherhood, p. 61, he gives his account of an exchange with a committee assigned to examine his teaching. Here is an excerpt of this account:
Especially descriptive of the opponents of the Reformation is Luther's charge that the papists made "a laughingstock out of Scripture". But today, the "soldiers" who make "a great laughingstock out of Scripture" are the teachers of LCMS pastors. In the book published by Prof. Frederick Danker († 2012) No Room in the Brotherhood, p. 61, he gives his account of an exchange with a committee assigned to examine his teaching. Here is an excerpt of this account:“As for the story of Jesus’ walking on the water, ... I assured the committee that if they had had a camera on the occasion they would have broken it. ... The committee, however, appeared to have no interest in exploring the depth meaning of the biblical accounts, and I heard the Lord in good humor say to me, ‘I did, but I won’t invite them to try it.’”
Would any supporters of Danker today, such as Prof. James W. Voelz (archive 1, 2), Graduate Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary (CSL), want to suggest that Frederick Danker did not mean to make the committee members laugh at his "broken camera" comment? Would any defenders of Danker suggest that he did not mean for his readers to laugh in jest (sneer?) at the examining committee members? (Voelz holds also Martin Franzmann in high regard for "the hermeneutical task" (here, p. 235))
====>>> Let the reader judge!... whether a plain reading of John 10:35 – "and the Scripture cannot be broken" – means what it says (and the way Luther took it to mean)... or not.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the next Part 8, Walther gleans the chief "building blocks" laid down by Martin Luther himself for those teachers who followed him...
= = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = =
[2019-05-29: In Luther's Works, Am. Ed. vol. 26, p. 457, on Gal. 4:30 Luther writes: "This sentence is legitimate, and it is irrevocable; for 'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35)."]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.