Deny divinity of Scripture? = "No more in faith”; Walther & Scripture, Part 2 of 3; Engelder's blind spot on Elert

[2020-02-03: inserted text at bottom in "jump break" section of Engelder's essay]
      This continues from Part 1, a 3-part series on the importance of Holy Scripture in Walther's theology. — To reinforce Walther's acceptance of the label "Biblicism", we add the following striking assertion that will put all modern theologians on the defensive.  The importance of the Scripture Principle, or the "formal principle", or "das Schriftprinzip", was severely compromised by all modern theology, even in Walther's day.  But in the Synodical Conference Report of 1886 it was stated (p. 29-30, emphasis mine):

“Hence, we stand by our thesis, ‘the doctrine, that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine origin in their contents and wording, is a doctrine the surrender of which dissolves the foundation of the Christian faith.’ Those who speak like Volck, Harnack, and others no longer stand in faith.”

Did you hear that?  Let me repeat it: Walther and the Synodical Conference declare that a compromise of the divine Inspiration of Holy Scripture “dissolves the foundation of the Christian faith”, that those who deny it

“no longer stand in faith”. 

This is a very serious warning indeed!  It flatly states that one cannot hold the so-called "material principle", i.e. "justification through faith" or the "vicarious satisfaction", without the Scripture Principle.  Long before Franz Pieper rose to the head of Concordia Seminary, C.F.W. Walther passionately taught this and defended it for dear life. 

      It is a pattern in Pieper's "Das Fundament" essay to point out that deniers of this doctrine are actually abandoning the foundations of Christianity, a very serious charge, and one that he (and Walther and Luther) meant.  These warnings are no child's play, they are no joke, nothing funny – they are matters of spiritual and eternal life and death – for you and me. —  In the next installment of Pieper's Das Fundament series, Part 20, this great warning is repeated. — In the concluding Part 3 of this series, examples are given of false charges made by LCMS teachers against Franz Pieper.

- - - - - - [Further information on Engelder's review of Werner Elert in the Read More section below] - - - - - -

Engelder praised Werner Elert,
only weak warning

      Theo. Engelder defended the Scripture Principle quite strongly with his final book The Scripture Cannot Be Broken.  He was subsequently disdained for this by teachers in the LC-MS.  However, in a 1937 review of an essay by the German theologian Werner Elert (CTM 8, October, p. 738-740, PDF, “Schrift und Bekenntnis”), Engelder praised Elert's "confessional" theology while partially admitting Elert's confusing talk of "Scriptural authority". One would have a hard time finding Walther or Pieper offering any praise of theologians, German or American, who question the full divinity of Holy Scripture. As demonstrated above, they rather question that they even stand in the Christian faith.  Unfortunately Engelder's weak warnings against Elert may have been used by the changing LC-MS as a green light to then take their instruction from Germany, instead of from Walther and Pieper. (See Schroeder, here, p. 234)
      Lowell C. Green in his 1997 (Summer) essay for CHIQ "The Relationship of Werner Elert and America" p. 83, stated the following influence of Elert on the LC-MS:

"…some of the Americans who according to my knowledge studied at Erlangen [under Elert] in the 1930s include Helmut Lehmann and Martin Lehmann, Fred Schoenbohm, Dorris Flessner, Martin Dietrich, Theodore Bachmann, and Theodore Baudler; in the 1940s and 50s followed Norman Nagel, Robert Schultz, Edward Schroeder, Richard Baepler, Paul Schulze, Lloyd Svendsbye, Howard Wagner, Robert Foster, and I. Besides these, Germans who studied under Elert and later became prominent in America included Gottfried Krodel, Gerhard Krodel, and Hans Hillerbrand. Elert also exerted his influence on Americans who did not study directly under him, such as Reu, Samuel Salzmann, Berthold von Schenck, and Jaroslav Pelikan, to name only a few."

Today's LC-MS and American Lutheranism in general are much more a product of Werner Elert than Engelder, Walther, or Franz Pieper. [Full German text of Engelder's review from CTM p. 736-747 here; translation of only the review of Elert's essay p. 738-740 here.] [2020-02-03: inserted the text of the aforementioned translation below in the "jump break" section:]

“the Word was God” or “God was the Word”? Christmas 2019: 2 testimonies

On this Christmas Day, 2019, I offer the following 2 testimonies:

(1) John 1:1 and “the Word”
      Recent research of Luther's sermons turned up a Scripture passage in translation that is quite surprising to our English ears.  In the King James Version, John 1:1 is rendered

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

However in Martin Luther's Gospel sermon for the Third Day of Christmas, he preached on John 1:1-14 which includes the above passage (German text here).  So what was surprising in this? He begins with his translation of this passage from the original Greek, the last phrase being

“…and God was the Word.”

Oh!… just as with Luther's translation of Genesis 4:1, the proper translation of the original text is quite foreign to us English speakers. — If one looks through the 29 English translations of this verse on BibleHub, none of them renders this phrase according to the Greek.  Not even Beck's An American Translation (or AAT), which purports to follow the text more closely, renders it according to the Greek. Also the new WELS-EHV renders this passage like all the others, with no footnote. — You can check the Greek interlinear text for yourself  here.

      Luther then expounds this passage in his usual way, in the power of the text itself.  One can read this in an English translation of John Nicholas Lenker here, or in Luther's Works vol. 52, p. 49, or in McCain's A Year in the Gospels, volume 1, p. 124-125.  We highlight the following (emphasis mine):

“Since there is no more than one God, it must be true that God Himself is the Word, which was in the beginning before all creation. Some read and put the words in this order: ‘And the Word was God,’ in order to explain that this Word not only is with God and a different person but that it is also in its essence one true God with the Father. But [we do not permit ourselves to be driven away from the text, as if John had not known how he should arrange his words], we shall leave the words in the order in which they now stand: ‘And God was the Word’; and this is also what it means. Since there is no other God than the one, only God, and this same God must also essentially be the Word, of which he speaks, so there is nothing in the divine nature which is not in the Word. It is clearly stated that this Word is truly God, so that it is not only true that the Word is God but also that God is the Word.”

Well now, Luther preaches that “God Himself is the Word”.  I think I will call myself a "biblicist" and worship the Word, just as Luther, and C.F.W. Walther, and Franz Pieper, and the Old Missouri Synod. (For German readers, the German text for the above is available here and here.)
      Then we hear how these majestic words of John 1:1 relate to our celebration of Christmas today in John 1:14 –

“And [God] the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…” 

(2) John 8:56 – Abraham
      I received a Christmas greeting message from a correspondent who had bulk sent it to his mailing list.  It contained an image of Mary and Joseph, the baby Jesus in a manger, and the Star overhead. The attached message spoke of the prophesied coming of the Messiah in the Old Testament. That reminded me of Christ's words in John 8:56 –

“Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.”

Today is Jesus's BirthDay.  May we rejoice on this Christmas Day, as Abraham did in his day, with gladness.

Fundament 19: Deniers of Inspiration 1; Schriftprinzip!

[2020-01-03: corrected first graphic to reference "Deniers" instead of "Reformed"]
      This continues from Part 18 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the foundation of the Christian faith ("Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens"). — Pieper now moves on from his extensive defense of the "Means of Grace" to cover his last "Fundament", the doctrine of Inspiration.   My concurrent series "Walther & Scripture" documents the fact that Franz Pieper, not today's LC-MS, is following Walther's teaching on this.  This doctrine has been covered extensively and passionately by the Synodical Conference Report of 1886 and in Walther's "Foreword" to Lehre und Wehre in 1886.  Now in 1925, almost 40 years later, it is Pieper's turn to carry the torch…

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

Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Pieper's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] is mine.

Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens.

The Foundation of the Christian Faith.

[by President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary; continued from Part 18 - page 282]

The Deniers of the Inspiration of Scripture and the Foundation of Christian Faith. 

It is well known that one of the characteristics of modern theology is that it denies the inspiration of Scripture. In the class of deniers of the inspiration of Scripture belong all theologians who do not want to “identify” Scripture and God's Word, that is, deny that Sacred Scripture is inspired by God to the holy scribes and is therefore God's own infallible Word in all its parts. These theologians, from their position on Scripture, also draw the natural consequence. Just as they reject the inspiration of Scripture, they also reject the view and treatment of Scripture as the only source and norm of Christian doctrine. They rather consider it imperative to flee from the allegedly unreliable Holy Scripture into one's own heart, into the so-called “Christian consciousness” or “experience”, as the only storm-proof castle. [page 283] 

They teach a “self-assurance” of the Christian faith. They give instructions to base faith on faith. Thus they completely abandon the foundation of the Christian faith.

Christ, the Lord and Saviour of his Church, declares Holy Scripture the firm and indestructible foundation of the Christian faith. [Eph. 2:20] And He gives this explanation both in relation to the Scriptures of the Old Testament and in relation to the Scriptures of the New Testament. He testifies of Old Testament Scripture that it can not be “broken”. (John 10:35) And he does not do this merely for the purpose of establishing theoretically that a scripture exists in which there is no error or weak point, but has an exceedingly practical purpose. He wants to remind the Jews that they should not judge Him on the basis of their human opinion, but on the basis of Scripture. On the basis of Scripture they should judge and believe that He, the Messenger of God κατ' εξοχήν, “whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world”, does not blaspheme God when he previously said to them: “I am the Son of God”, ὅτι εἶπον Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰμι (John 10:36) Furthermore, Christ testifies of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and to all false foundations of faith sought by men: “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” (Luke 16:29) Even when the Emmaus disciples themselves could not find a Messiah in the one who died on the cross and resurrected from the dead, Christ leads them back to the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the right foundation of faith in the words: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25-27) But also for the Scriptures of the New Testament as the foundation of the Christian faith, we have Christ's testimony when He teaches us in His high priestly prayer that all people who come to faith until the Last Day, “shall believe on me through their”—that is, His Apostles’— “Word”. (John 17:20) According to Christ's further teaching, the Apostles’ word is not their own human word, but God's or Christ's Word. (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; Acts 28:25) As the prophets of the Old Testament did not speak and write their own word, but that of God or the Holy Spirit or the word of Christ, so Christ also declares with reference to his Apostles of the New Testament: “I have given them thy word.” (John 17:14) And the apostles were very clearly aware of the fact that they were not speaking their own word, but the Word of Christ.

[page 284] Paul reminds the Corinthians not only that Christ speaks through him, δοκιμὴν ζητεῖτε τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος Χριστοῦ, (2 Cor. 13:3) but also declares every teacher who does not remain with the saving Words of our Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul speaks them and communicates them in writing, (1 Cor. 14:37) to be an ignorant person who is subject to being puffed up (τετύφωται), [1 Tim. 6:4] who is sick in the hospital of questions and disputes (νοσῶν περὶ ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας), (1 Tim. 6:3 ff.) who is not to be accepted and tolerated by the Christian congregations as a teacher, but is to be avoided as one who causes divisions and offenses in the church. (Rom. 16:17) Indeed, Paul goes so far as to pronounce the curse on all those who teach the Gospel differently from him. (Gal.1:8-9) The Apostle teaches that the entire Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is the only foundation of the Christian faith when he speaks of the Christian Church to the Last Day: “Built upon the foundation (θεμέλιον) of the apostles and prophets”. (Eph. 2:20) The Papists want to make a break here by dividing the word of the apostle into the word of the apostle handed down orally (tradition) and the word of the apostle recorded in writing. But the Apostles themselves expressly reject this division. They do this in a twofold way. 

= = = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 20  = = = = = = = = = =

      Pieper clearly refutes teachers at Concordia Seminary today, e.g. former Prof. J. Kloha, who claim that the New Testament only claims the Old Testament as "God-breathed" or inspired, not itself.  It is comforting to be reminded again of Jesus's High Priestly Prayer that teaches "their Word", the Apostles’ Word, shall work faith for all people, and that it is not a human Word, but Christ's Word.  So why would so-called "Lutheran" teachers want to cause doubt for Christians? — In the next Part 20, Pieper issues the great warning against those who deny, or subtly question, the Inspiration and full Divinity of Holy Scripture. — But also concurrent to this segment of Pieper is Part 2 of my "Walther & Scripture" series.

Walther: call me a Biblicist, please! LCMS: not us, please!; Walther & Scripture, Part 1 of 3

      If you Google the word "Scripturarismus" you will find an assortment of German theological publications that have used it.  An early use of this term was by a certain German theologian who had traveled to America to report on religious life there.  In particular, he used that word in reference to a certain North American Lutheran synod.  The following is my translation of an excerpt from his 1874 book giving the report of his visit (p. 103-104, translation, bolding mine):

"It  is more than questionable that the Missourians have a well-founded right to call themselves Lutheran with emphasis. … as far as doctrine is concerned, a version of the formal principle is represented which very often has been called Reformed ‘Scripturarism’, [or ‘Biblicism’] and which in truth belongs neither to the one nor to the other branch of the Reformation, but rather is a product of later Orthodoxism."

Walther's Missouri Synod theology was characterized as being guilty of Reformed "Biblicism"! (It may be noted that also the LC-MS historian Carl S. Meyer also charged Walther similarly as Krummacher.) Now one might think that Walther would take offense at this charge, especially coming from a non-Lutheran "Evangelical" theologian.  But in 1875 C.F.W. Walther answered this charge in his Foreword to Lehre und Wehre in the following way (p. 66, translation, bolding mine; see also p. 137 here):

"The United-Reformed [Unierte; Prussian Union] Krummacher, after only a brief glance at our Missouri Synod, accused it of the inconsistency that 'with regard to doctrine it affirms a version of the formal principle that very often has been called Reformed ‘Biblicism’' ['Scripturarism'] … In our opinion a United-Reformed theologian could hardly have paid us a greater compliment; for if our characterization as faithfully adhering to the Scripture principle, a claim which the Reformed Church incorrectly makes for itself, is factual and truthful, we are true Protestants, true Lutherans."

Four points can be made from Walther's response to Krummacher who would call himself a "positive Evangelical" and praises "mild Lutherans" (p. 89):

1. Walther identified Krummacher's "biblicism" with the Scripture Principle, the so-called "formal principle".
2. Walther accepted the charge of  "biblicism" as a compliment.
3. The claim of the Reformed, that they adhere to the Scripture Principle rather than the true Lutherans, is a false claim.
4. Only "true Lutherans", those who are "biblicists", are true Protestants.

      Why is it so important to understand the importance of the Scripture Principle in Walther's theology?  Because the Scripture Principle is the foundation of the Christian faith. (John 17:17) So now we are ready to listen to Franz Pieper once again teach the divine Inspiration of Holy Scripture, just like Walther, in the next installment of my series "The Foundation of the Christian Faith, or "Das Fundament des christlichen Glauben", Part 19.
      Today's LC-MS teachers almost universally attack Franz Pieper for his strong defense of the Scripture Principle. We will expose another one of these attacks in Part 3, but first we will hear from Walther another assertion that will make today's LCMS teachers and leaders squirm even more – in the next Part 2 of this short series.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  (More on Krummacher available below)  - - - - - - - - - -

Orthodox Lutheran Conference vs LC-MS: in court under oath

      The LC-MS Christian Cyclopedia surprisingly gives a report by Rev. Wallace McLaughlin (WHM) on the Orthodox Lutheran Conference (OLC, see also here) which had separated from LC-MS.  It represented the case that there were actual changes in the doctrine of the Synod, and especially on foundational matters for the Christian faith. The following is a public record of a 1954 civil court case in connection with a congregation attempting to change their affiliation from the erring LC-MS to the OLC. It exposes a controversy that was created by the LC-MS's willingness to compromise its own confession with erring Lutherans.
      The court record was later published by Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly which admitted that the "statements were made in court under oath" and therefore are a matter of public record.  So there can be no copyright claim on these statements and I am therefore publishing them to the world, for the benefit of the Church. Because there are several pages of testimony, much of it between lawyers and the judge, I am embedding it so that it does not take up so much screen space.  To aid the reader who wants to skim through for the most important testimony, I have highlighted the most important sections of the testimony given by Professor Paul Kretzmann. 

      What were the issues?  Kretzmann testified on Romans 16:17, the Common Confession (see also here), and also the added issue of "engagement" for marriage.  Towards the end, there is testimony by Wallace McLaughlin on other points of differences but he was not allowed the time to elaborate, which is a shame.
      For those who are familiar with the manner of lawyers and court proceedings, this can be interesting reading, although it can be somewhat confusing – the tactics of the lawyers are not always clear.  What does seem clear is that the LC-MS did not want to allow the notion that its doctrine had changed, at least not publicly, so that the laity could judge their erring spiritual leaders. 

      The following is a scrolling window of the 14-page article:

      The follow is an excerpt of the chief points of Prof. Kretzmann's testimony that were the basis of the OLC's defense against the mediating LC-MS:

"We believe, in opposition to the Common Confession,
(1) that the entire Bible, word for word, is inspired by the Holy Ghost. That is on inspiration.
(2) We believe with respect to the salvation of mankind that that salvation was complete on Calvary and that all mankind is included in that plan of redemption by our blessed Savior.
(3) We believe with regard to the conversion of man that it is solely and entirely the work of the Holy Ghost without any effort whatsoever on the part of man. We believe with respect to the … the election unto eternal life that God from eternity in his own gracious will selected certain men out of the total of redeemed humanity for eternal life.
(4) We believe with respect to the church that in its essence the church is invisible. The Holy Christian Church, the Communion of Saints, and that there is no visibility to the church whatsoever although there are certain attributes of the church which are visible and those are the Word and the Sacraments.
(5) We believe with respect to church fellowship that there can be no church fellowship in the Biblical sense unless there is full agreement in all the doctrines of the Bible, both fundamental and non-fundamental."

      The external Synodical Conference brethren were also heavily involved at this same time in warning the erring LC-MS, but the testimony above was not from outside brethren but from those who had been inside the LC-MS… and then separated from it. — May this confession of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference, recorded in a public civil court, stand as a testimony against the LC-MS that desperately wanted to avoid having it on public record.  This is not the property of Concordia Historical Institute, it is public testimony.

Fundament 18: Means 9: Luther’s summary and proof; erring LC-MS

[2019-12-19: added note at bottom]
      This continues from Part 17 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the foundation of the Christian faith ("Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens"). —  This segment concludes Pieper's treatment of the Lutheran Doctrine of the Means of Grace and draws heavily on Luther.  It is powerful teaching for all of Christianity.

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

Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Pieper's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] is mine.

Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens.

The Foundation of the Christian Faith.

[by President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary; continued from Part 17 - page 261]

We place here a few words in which Luther summarizes and proves that the Christian faith has the means of grace as its necessary foundation. After Luther had shown that Christ, as the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world, is our righteousness before God, he continued: (St. L. XI, 1735 ff. [Not in old series Am. Ed.; Lenker 14, p. 223-225, § 28-32]) 

“How and by what means we may appropriate such righteousness, so that we may bring home the treasure acquired by Christ. Here also we need to give heed that we take the right way, and not make the mistake, which certain heretics have made in times past, and many erroneous minds still set forth, who think that God ought to do something special with them. These imagine that God will deal separately with each one by some special internal light and mysterious revelation, and give him the Holy Ghost, as though there was no need of the written Word or the external sermon. Consequently we are to know that God has ordained that no one shall come to the knowledge of Christ, nor obtain the forgiveness acquired by him, nor receive the Holy Ghost, without the use of external and public means; but God has embraced this treasure in the oral word or public ministry, and will not perform his work in a corner or mysteriously in the heart, but will have it heralded and distributed openly among the people, even as Christ commands, Mark 16:15: ‘Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature,’ etc.. He does this in order that we may know how and where to seek and expect his grace, so that in all Christendom there may be the same custom and order, and not every man follow his own mind and act according to his own notions, and so deceive himself and others, which would certainly happen. As we cannot look into the heart of any man, each one might boast of having the Holy Ghost and set forth his own thoughts as divine revelation which God had inspired and taught him in a special manner; as a result, no one would know whom or what to believe. Therefore this part also, namely the external word or preaching, belongs to Christianity as a channel or means through which we attain unto the forgiveness of sins, or the righteousness of Christ, with which Christ reveals and offers us his [page 262] grace or lays it into our bosom, and without which no one would ever come to a knowledge of this treasure. For whence should any man know, or in what man's heart would it ever come, that Christ, the Son of God, came from heaven for our sake, died for us, and rose from the dead, acquired the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, and offers the same to us, without publicly having it announced and preached? And although he acquired this treasure for us through his suffering and death, no one could obtain or receive it, if Christ did not have it offered, presented, and applied. And all that he had done and suffered would be to no purpose, but would be like some great and precious treasure buried in the earth, which no one could find or make use of. Therefore I have always taught that the oral word must precede every thing else, must be comprehended with the ears, if the Holy Ghost is to enter the heart, who through the Word enlightens it and works faith. Consequently faith does not come except through the hearing and oral preaching of the Gospel, in which it has its beginning, growth and strength. For this reason the Word must not be despised, but held in honor. We must familiarize and acquaint ourselves with it, and constantly practice it, so that it never ceases to bear fruit; for it can never be understood and learned too well. Let every man beware of the shameless fellows who have no more respect for the Word than if it were unnecessary for faith; or of those who think they know it all, become tired of it, eventually fall from it, and retain nothing of faith or of Christ. Behold, here you have all that belongs to this article of the righteousness of Christ. It consists in the forgiveness of sins, offered to us through Christ, and received by faith in and through the Word, purely and simply without any works on our part. Yet I do not mean that Christians should not and must not do good works, but that they are not to be mingled and entwined in the doctrine of faith, and decorated with the shameless delusion that they avail before God as righteousness, whereby both the doctrine of works and of faith are besmirched and destroyed.”

We heard under the previous section, in the subdivision [April, p. 100 ff (Part 7)] where we were dealing with the relationship of synergism to the foundation of faith, that Luther was talking about a “sorrowful, secret trick” that makes us last of the first. This tiresome, secret treachery occurs when we do not simply coordinate ourselves with publicans and sinners, but attribute to ourselves, in comparison with them, a privilege before God, a lesser guilt or a “different behaviour”, and thus slip away from the foundation of the Christian faith, the sola gratia. 

We [page 263] also heard that Luther held this up as a warning to himself with the words: “Therefore it is also necessary that this Gospel [on Sunday Septuagesimä] should be preached at our times to those who now know the Gospel, to me and my kind, who imagine they can teach and govern the whole world, and therefore imagine they are the nearest to God and have devoured the Holy Spirit, feathers and bones.” So we can also speak of a “sorrowful, secret trick” that easily creeps into our personal practice with regard to the means of grace. We do not lack the right knowledge. Also we in our times can teach all the world the divine truth that the Holy Spirit comes to us only through the means of grace. But despite this knowledge, we practice enthusiastically, that is, we act as if the Holy Spirit does not need a vehicle when we are not diligent with God's Word and the means of grace. We lament and moan because of our low confidence in God's grace and because of the low status of our spiritual life in general. What is the deficiency? 

A self-examination shows that we are careless in our handling of the means of grace, that is, we actually expect the Holy Spirit to enlighten us immediately, to preserve us in faith and to fill us with spiritual joy. And this actual abandonment of the divine order can always only result in spiritual trouble. As in relation to this point also Luther confesses of himself, and at the same time refers to the only means by which the inner spiritual drought is lifted again and again:

“If I am without the Word, if I do not think of it, if I do not deal with it, there is no Christ at home, yes, there is no desire or spirit; but as soon as I take a psalm or a passage of the Scriptures before me, it shines and burns in my heart that I may gain other courage and meaning. I also know that every one of us should experience it daily by ourselves.”    F. P.     

= = = = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 19  = = = = = = = = =

      The LC-MS makes a great show of its "sacramental theology" yet teaches that “The gospel has a power … independent of the Scriptures”.  Now compare that statement to the last quote from Luther above and judge for yourself who you must believe.  The LC-MS is losing not only the Word, it is thereby also losing the Gospel.  How is it that Pieper is so much more powerful than today's LC-MS in his teaching and defense of the "Means of Grace"?  As he said elsewhere (Justification-General):

All praise of Christ, of grace, and of the means of grace, 

without the right doctrine of justification, 

is nothing.

Pieper (and Walther and Luther) had the right Lutheran Doctrine of Justification, so we can be certain that his basis for teaching the "Means of Grace" is solid, Scriptural. —  In the next Part 19, Pieper moves on to the last, but not the least, of his "Fundament", the foundations of the Christian faith – the Inspiration of Holy Scripture.
Added 2019-12-19: But first, I begin a 3-part series, "Walther & Scripture",  to defend Pieper's work on this doctrine, in Part 1.

Gerhard Forde: instructor to today's LCMS (2 of 2)

[2020-02-24: added reference at bottom to old blog]
     In Part 1, it was shown that the theologian Gerhard O. Forde questioned the foundational Christian doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction.  Forde's theology is thereby anti-Christian and unLutheran.  One would think that a synod claiming to be truly Lutheran would completely avoid Forde's theology because of this but that is not the case with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.  Their new seminary textbook, to update Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, quotes him approvingly in many places, offering only minor warnings, e.g. on his Third Use of Law.

Forde in Samuel Nafzger's/LC-MS textbook Confessing the Gospel

      The following is my tabulation of the references to the works of Gerhard O. Forde, an ELCA theologian, in the new (2018) LC-MS textbook Confessing the Gospel:

Samuel H. Nafzger General Editor	Confessing the Gospel	Concordia Publishing 2018
Chapter title	Primary Contributor(s)	#  Forde references
Prolegomena	David A. Lumpp	5
Anthropology	Jerrold A. Eickmann, Jerald C. Joersz, Thomas E. Manteufel, Daniel L. Mattson, Joel P. Okamoto	5
Work of Christ	Henry A. Hamann	8
Christian Life	Milton L. Rudnick, Martim C. Warth	5
Election	Robert Kolb	3 =========== Total: 26

There are approximately 26 references to Forde's writings in this 2-volume textbook for seminarians.  Most references offer no warning against his theology but rather quote him with approval.  All of these contributors are either ignorant of Forde's error on the fundamental article of the Christian faith, or what is more likely, they are, to borrow Siegbert Becker's words, "deliberately and culpably blind" to it – they are willing to overlook Forde's teaching that the Vicarious Satisfaction "creates more problems than it solves".

      But the ultimate tragedy of the praise of Forde's theology comes particularly in the last chapter "Election" by primary contributor Dr. Robert Kolb.  In the 2018 CPH book Walther's Works: Predestination, [2020-09-01 see also this post] it is repeatedly pointed out that one cannot hold the proper doctrine of Election of Grace without holding to the Lutheran doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification, or what is the same, the Vicarious Satisfaction.  While the author of Nafzger's textbook chapter (Kolb or Nafzger?) quotes both C.F.W. Walther and Franz Pieper in his attempt to set forth the Lutheran doctrine of "Predestination" or "Election", he then amazingly immediately follows these quotes with the following (p. 1255-1256):

"The most important North American Lutheran to articulate the doctrine of election in the late 20th century was Gerhard O. Forde (1927-2005).… Forde thereby seeks to drive home for troubled consciences the comfort that comes from knowing that before the world began God chose those to whom he has delivered his promise in Jesus Christ, and those in whom he has created faith through that same promise."

Forde demonstrates his "smokescreen" vocabulary by supposedly offering "comfort for troubled consciences" while questioning the Vicarious Satisfaction, an impossibility – as the CPH Walther's Works book demonstrates.  For Drs. Robert Kolb and/or editor Samuel Nafzger to hold up Gerhard O. Forde in the face of Walther and Pieper (and Stoeckhardt) is to join in Forde's duplicity, and thereby sadly exposes the author/editor's mixed, confusing theology.

      It is even sadder that Prof. (emeritus) Thomas Manteufel, in a recent article for Summer 2019 CHIQ, attempts to justify the Nafzger-Kolb textbook by highlighting its references to Walther and Pieper, while ignoring the travesty of its reference to Gerhard O. Forde in the same writing! – I am truly sorry for the seminarians that now are taught with Nafzger's textbook, and more sorry for the Lutheran congregations who will have their future pastors taught under its "Lutheran approach", instead of Walther and Pieper. — For the reader interested in a in-depth debate on "Predestination" that clearly distinguishes truth from error, the 2018 CPH book Walther's Works: Predestination is the best there is. (2020-02-24: see also this blog)