StL8*: Pieper reviews v. 16: "the Lies of the Pope" (Lehre und Wehre, 1901)

      This continues from Part 8c (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series on the St. Louis Edition (StL) of Luther's complete writings in English. — This 1-part blog is inserted after Part 8c to publish Seminary President Franz Pieper's short review of volume 16, the second of 3 volumes covering the writings of and against the Papists.  Pieper begins this with one of the more biting comments I have read from him. His words speak for themselves.  From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 47 (1901), p. 20-21 [EN]:

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

Dr. Martin Luther's Complete Writings. Sixteenth volume. Containing documents pertaining to the History of the Reformation. Against the Papists, from the years 1525 to 1537.

That so many “Protestants” allow themselves to be baffled by the lies of the Pope serves them right, because they do not hear the man whom God has appointed to expose the abominations of the Pope to the whole human race through the light of the Gospel. Therefore, what we wish for the Church in the Twentieth Century is this: besides the Holy Scriptures, read Luther's writings first and foremost. The sixteenth volume of our Luther edition contains historical documents from the years 1525 to 1537, which refer to the disputes with the papists. Among these documents, however, are a number of important writings by Luther, e.g., his warning to his dear Germans, his Commentary on the Alleged Imperial Edict, his preface to the papist advice on the betterment of the church, his writing "On the Councils and the Church," plus Luther's incomparably splendid letters written from Coburg during the Imperial Diet at Augsburg. The reading of Luther's writings is not only a work, but also a delight and refreshment. F. P.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  End of review; series continues with Part 9a  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pieper's review was written at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.  May his "wish for the Church" be granted in the 21st Century, that other writings be set aside to read Luther "first and foremost", now with the availability of an English translation of the St. Louis Edition. — Our general series continues with Part 9a.

“The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught,…” (Old Missouri on Pope Leo XIII, Antichrist)

      In a previous blog post of a year ago, I published the official statement of today's LC-MS on the Antichrist.  From their 2012 FAQ, they write:

“The LCMS does not teach, 

nor has it ever taught, 

that any individual Pope as a person, 

is to be identified with the Antichrist.”

That the LCMS indeed does not teach "any individual Pope" is easily proven, even by Prof. Robert Preus, who in a recent article republished in the August 29, 2022 issue of Christian News, p. 11.  is quoted regarding the Antichrist that "it doesn’t mean any pope personally, but it means the institution". — But the claim of "nor has it ever taught" seemed particularly at risk of being proven false.  And indeed, while reviewing the articles published in the German language Lehre und Wehre [LuW], I came across a glaring example that explicitly proves that this claim of theirs about the Old Missouri Synod is false.  

       Prof. Friedrich Bente wrote a feature article in LuW, vol. 49 (September 1903), pp. 257-275, entitled "Leo XIII" who had died in July of that same year 1903.  Leo was born "Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci" [Wikipedia] and named Pope Leo XIII in 1878.  Bente, in contradiction to practically the whole world, labels Leo as (1) an idolater, (2) a pagan (p. 264), (3) a church tyrant (p. 265), (4) an enemy of the State and especially of American liberty (p. 267), (5) without good works (p. 269), (6) an enemy of the Bible (p. 271), and (7) a heretic (p. 272). He documents all of the above. But Bente saved the best for last. On page 274 he flatly stated what Old Missouri taught:

 

“Leo XIII was the Antichrist.”

[Leo XIII war der Antichrist.]

There, he said it, an individual, as Pope, was the Antichrist.  So much for the LC-MS's claim to the contrary about the Old Missouri Synod.  Bente was not excluding other individual Popes from being the Antichrist, he was showing that not just the office of the Papacy was the Antichrist, but that also ALL office holders of the Papacy were, are, and will be, the Antichrist. To summarize Bente's essay, we present the English translation of his final paragraph:

    Leo XIII was the Antichrist. In the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, a precise picture is drawn of the most dangerous enemy of the Church, from whom Christians should be doubly aware. This enemy of Christ and His Church would not destroy the Church from the outside, but from the inside; in the temple of God, in the midst of Christianity, he would sit and have his being; he would seduce the Church to a great apostasy from Christ; in the Church he would appear as a tyrant; he would exalt himself above everything that is called God and worship; yes, as God he would let himself be worshipped in the Church; he will unfold a mysterious power of wickedness and an incomprehensible, supernatural spell of seduction; as a means of seduction he will use all kinds of lying powers and signs and wonders; he will surround himself with the appearance of special holiness and piety; he will spread powerful falsities and lies in the church; he will command what God has forbidden and forbid what God has released or commanded, etc. This enemy of the Church is described in Scripture as the "wicked" and "repulsive" one, as the "man of sin and the child of perdition", as "the Antichrist", whom God will kill with the spirit of His mouth and whom He will put an end to by the appearance of His future. — If we now go through the Church and its history with this image, which God Himself gave us of the Antichrist, we must confess: The great Antichrist, whom the Bible draws, is not a Roman emperor, who bloodily persecutes the Christians, not Muhammed and his successors, who have shed much Christian blood, nor Napoleon or a still future great socialist or nihilist, but solely the Pope of Rome. In Leo XIII, his predecessors and successors, we find again, and indeed strongly pronounced, every single trait which the holy writers have given to the image of Antichrist. And if, on the other hand, one points to the facts that millions of Catholics revered Leo XIII as the head and king of the Church; that Leo was almost universally reputed to be especially holy, pious and wise; that the secular and ecclesiastical press celebrated the Pope as the powerful prince of the Church, as the pillar of the state and benefactor of the people; that Edward VII, Wilhelm II and other Protestant princes, politicians, theologians and laymen bowed before Leo XIII. that the Presbyterians have erased from their confession the words in which the Pope is called the great Antichrist; that the number of Protestants who see in the Pope a beneficial power and especially a bulwark against unbelief and anarchy is growing; that finally even among the present Lutherans the number of those who consider the Pope the great Antichrist is small: all this and much more that is put forward in favor of the papacy does not mislead us in our judgment of Leo XIII. All this does not contradict the picture that Scripture paints of the great Antichrist; on the contrary, it is a clear feature of this very picture and agrees most exactly with what Scripture has prophesied about the mystery of wickedness and its seductive power. Whoever judges the Pope not by the number of his followers, not by the lies he spreads about himself, not by the outward appearance and not by the natural reason, which does not know Christ and therefore is not able to distinguish the Antichrist, but by the Holy Scripture, must call out to the much celebrated Leo XIII: You are an idolater, a pagan, a church tyrant, an enemy of the state, an oppressor of the people, an enemy of the Bible, a heretic, yes, the great Antichrist himself.

May God defend against the seduction of the Antichrist, control the great troubles, grant repentance to those who have been betrayed and deceived, and put an early end to the Pope by the appearance of his future. F. B. [Friedrich Bente]

= = = = = = = = = = = 

Prof. Bente is only continuing the doctrine that Pastor Friedrich Lochner taught in a previous 1894 essay. The LC-MS statement proves that it has long ago left the teaching of the Missouri Synod, and that is why one must distinguish "Old Missouri" from the modernist LC-MS. Bente's full essay is instructive and breathtaking, and reminds one of how much Leo XIII can be thought of as similar to the 3 most recent Popes. Perhaps I will publish the full essay, but if not, look for it in my upcoming full English translation of the entire 75 volumes of the German journal Lehre und Wehre. 

DL7d: Harrison vs. Lochner - a comparison; another question for Carver

      This concludes from Part 7c (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Der Lutheraner, 1888-1934, in English. — President Harrison's blindness is bad enough for himself, but to inflict it upon the whole Synod is… disastrous.  Sometimes I wonder that I have promoted the "Pope is the Antichrist" too much, but then I read another article, now Lochner's, that tells me that I have been too mild.  So in this last Part 7d, I highlight the clear difference between Harrison and Lochner, and pose another pointed question to a CPH/LC-MS translator.  — Excerpts from Der Lutheraner, vol. 50 (1894), p. 204-205 [EN]: 

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

“Keep us, O Lord, by Thy Word, And prevent the murder by Pope and Turk.”

[by Pastor Friedrich Lochner; concludes from Part 7c]

“Lochner… is in sympathy and dialogue with… Roman Catholics” Foreword to The Chief Divine Service, p. xi

“Let us therefore thank God that our hymnal also contains this Reformation hymn completely unchanged! And so…, in these last sorrowful times (1) in which only a few still believe that the Pope is the real Antichrist, and (2) in which one has become even more gentle and considerate against this arch-enemy of Christ and His Church, we may sing all the more with right earnestness in our churches and schools: ‘And prevent the murder by the Pope and Turk’… According to the Scriptures, Pope and Turk are and remain the “two arch-enemies of Christ and His churches” Der Lutheraner, vol. 50 (1894), p. 205

Let the reader judge between these two testimonies! I believe that if Lochner was with us today, he would answer Pres. Harrison in a way similar to Franz Pieper, in an irenic way:

“President Harrison's claim is fiction.”

Lochner explicitly states that the Pope will remain, for all time, the “arch-enemy of Christ and His Church" because Holy Scripture teaches it. Can any reader still doubt that the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is actually and actively a Romanizing church body?… when its President can so blatantly falsify the theology of Pastor Friedrich Lochner. No, no, listen to Pastor Lochner who is so highly praised by LC-MS leaders, teachers and pastors! Or rather, listen to Luther, Walther, Pieper, the Lutheran Confessions, and the dear Pastor Friedrich Lochner! — I have headlined Pastor Carl Manthey Zorn as a discovered treasure from Der Lutheraner, but a close second to him is Pastor Friedrich Lochner.  Look for his instructive essays in Der Lutheraner, either by search terms “F. L.” or “Lochner”.

To Matthew Carver:

      I put the question about the above to you, Matthew Carver, the translator of Lochner’s book. Do you now believe what Harrison stated in his “Foreword” to your translated book, that “Lochner is in sympathy and dialogue with Roman Catholics"? (I only ask you because of your last response to me.)

- - - - - - - - - -

      How hard the LC-MS will use sophistry to attempt to make Lochner's theology “more gentle and considerate” towards Romanism.  Yet the plain reading of Lochner above shows rather how embarrassing he is now for the LC-MS.  May they continue to praise him to the highest heavens!… and so expose their duplicity. — 

      Luther composed his hymn for children.  Would not children understand the term "Pope" as not just the office of the Papacy, but also all who hold that office, like I did in my younger years? The LC-MS teaching is now forced on its people against all logic. — The Der Lutheraner series continues in Part 8, an updated version of The Walther Years.

DL7c: Spangenberg; Schaff: "no longer appropriate"; Lochner: "Pope and Turk remain"

      This continues from Part 7b and its Excursus (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Der Lutheraner, 1888-1934, in English. — First we are treated to a testimony to the greatness of the original hymn that Luther wrote.  Then Lochner answers the objection of modernists for changing Luther's words.  — From Der Lutheraner, vol. 50 (1894), p. 204-205:

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

“Keep us, O Lord, by Thy Word, And prevent the murder by Pope and Turk.”

[by Pastor Friedrich Lochner; cont'd from Part 7b]

 

In the preface to the fourth part of his sermons on Luther's hymns, the Mansfeld preacher Cyriacus Spangenberg writes of this hymn, among other things: “Oh, it is a precious, a powerful, a mighty little hymn, which has so far stopped many misfortunes, and great treasures of divine grace and heavenly goods have been preserved and protected with it. The devil also noticed and felt very soon that this hymn, sung in faith, would not do him a little bad harm and would then be promoted, which is why he was so bitterly hostile to it and tried many things against it: pastors and schoolmasters, who had caused it to be sung in churches and schools, chased away by it and deprived of their services; often had it forbidden by ungodly authorities to be sung and spoken; brought pious Christian subjects into misery by it; also some into heavy imprisonment and not a few to death.”

Finally, a word about the fact that we still have reason to sing about the Turk's [Mohamedans or Muslims] murdering and to pray with Luther against them. 

The Reformed Professor Dr. Ph. Schaff, who died in New York last year [1893], said in the introduction to his hymnal, published in 1860, that the “Prevent the murder by Pope and Turk” [Steur des Pabsts und Türken Mord] was no longer appropriate in our time, especially in our America, and made the pointed remark with regard to our hymnal that it might have “the above passage out of consideration for the American Turks, the Mormons in Utah.” As far as the Pope is concerned, the experience of three decades has taught us well enough how much we need our prayer hymn even in these times, “especially in America”. But as far as the Turk is concerned, we may equally continue to pray against them with our hymn, despite their “the obvious sickness [Schwindsucht]”. 

According to the Scriptures, Pope and Turk are and remain the “two arch-enemies of Christ and His churches,” 2 Thess. 2 and Dan. 11:26-45, 7:8, 20-26, and Ezek. 38 and 39, compare with Revelation 20:8-9. The Turk may have become the “sick man” with regard to worldly power and therefore can no longer attack Christianity with fire and sword as they did in former times [which they have now re-asserted with a vengeance because Christians quit praying against them] — his fierce hatred of Christians and his thirst for Christian blood is still the same and still breaks out soon here and soon there against the Christians living in his territories.  

Think, for example, of the Christian bloodbath in Syria some thirty years ago [1860]. Even if we are safe from the sword of the Turk, the apostolic word, 1 Cor. 12:26, still applies: “If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it.” Then, in a spiritual way, everything that, apart from the Pope, wants to push Jesus Christ, our only Mediator and Savior, from the throne of divine majesty, belongs to the realm of Mohamed, the false prophet, thus all gross and subtle deniers of the divinity of Christ and the divinity of the Holy Scriptures [now the LC-MS and their “divine-human” Scriptures]; for this is the main feature of the religion of Mohamed, that it allows Christ to be only a mere man and at the same time places Him below Mohamed, and that it substitutes the abominable Koran for the Holy Scriptures. Since such deniers of Christ and the Scriptures are becoming more and more numerous, it is all the more necessary that we still pray against the Turk today and therefore continue in our churches and schools and homes to sing Luther's powerful children's hymn “against the two arch-enemies of Christ and His churches, the Pope and the Turk.”       F. L.   [Friedrich Lochner]

- - - - - - - - - - -  Concluded in Part 7d  - - - - - - - - - - 

Although Lochner admits the modernist reasoning that the Pope and Turk are not as effective in their power to murder today, yet he stands firm on the Scripture and Lutheran Confessions. It appears that the famous Reformed theologian Schaff speaks for today's LC-MS on the doctrine of the Antichrist. And Lochner also teaches just as Walther and Pieper on the divinity, not the "divine-and-human" nature, of Holy Scripture. — In the concluding Part 7d, I show a side-by-side comparison between Harrison and Lochner.

"Carl Vehse" Part II: LC-MS change on Antichrist doctrine

      This blog post continues from Part I of Sept. 2, 2022 and documents the reasoning used by the LC-MS in the 1950s to soften its teaching on the Antichrist from that of the Lutheran Confessions.  Contributor "Carl Vehse"'s documentation is extensive and clear.  I especially appreciate how he documents a misuse of an essay by Prof. Martin Guenther from Lehre und Wehre of 1879.  I have taken the liberty to highlight the important points to enhance my own understanding and possibly the reader's. I encourage readers to read the entire post, past the break below, for the full story.

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

"Carl Vehse"

In the September 2, 2022, Back to Luther blog on the LCMS change on the Antichrist doctrine, the following quote from the President's Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Practice was provided:

Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. It teaches that there will be an Antichrist (prophecy) . We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture. The early Christians could not have identified the Antichrist as we do. If it were clearly expressed teaching of Scripture, they must have been able to do so. Therefore, the quotation from Lehre und Wehre "goes too far."

This excerpt is from the August 15, 1951, report of the Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Practice. It was replaced in the 1956 revised version of the Report by the following:

The Bible does not state in express words that the Pope is the Antichrist. We agree with Dr. Edward W. A. Koehler – A Summary of Christian Doctrine, River Forest, Ill. 1939, page 243, says: “The Bible does not expressly state who this Antichrist is, but it describes him, so that Christians may recognize him and be warned. As we endeavor to determine who this Antichrist may be, we must not take just one or two traits, but the entire composite picture as here portrayed, and find who fits into this picture. As we study the history of the church, we find but one institution which bears all the marks here ascribed to Antichrist, and that is the Roman Papacy.” [BTL: Koehler states in the following narrative (1952, p. 277) that “the Pope is the antichrist” as the Smalcald Articles state.]

We identify the Papacy as the Antichrist and we need both Scripture and history to do so. This is what is meant with the statement “This is an historical judgment based on Scripture.”

The issue of the Missouri Synod's teaching on the Antichrist and its role in fellowship discussions with other church bodies goes back further than the 1951 report and the 1956 revised report of the President's Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Practice (both reports available from Concordia Historical Institute), which dealt with the 1949 essay at the Southern California District and the California-Nevada District Conventions, "Present Hindrances to Lutheran Union," by Concordia Seminary Prof. William Frederick Arndt. It should be noted that Prof. Arndt was one of the signers of the September 20, 1945, "Statement of the Forty-Four", which included:

"We affirm our conviction that in keeping with the historic Lutheran tradition and in harmony with the Synodical resolution adopted in 1938 regarding Church fellowship, such fellowship is possible without complete agreement in details of doctrine and practice which have never been considered divisive in the Lutheran Church."

The Synodical resolution adopted at the 1938 LCMS Convention dealt with the Missouri Synod's fellowship talks with the American Lutheran Church.

The American Lutheran Church (ALC) was formed in 1930 by the merger of the Iowa Synod (est. 1854), the Buffalo Synod (est. 1845), and the Ohio Synod (est. 1818). In the 1935 LCMS Convention Proceedings (p. 221) a resolution was adopted to appoint a five-member Committee on Lutheran Union to hold church-fellowship discussions with the ALC, along with keeping the Synodical Conference informed about such discussions. The five Committee members included Concordia Seminary Prof. Arndt, Concordia Teachers College President Carl Frederick Brommer, Concordia Seminary Prof. F .H. Brunn, Concordia Seminary Prof. Theodore Engelder, and Rev. Karl Kretzmann.

 

"Carl Vehse": LC-MS change on Antichrist doctrine (Excursus to DL7b)

      This blog post is being inserted as an Excursus to Part 7b in the series on Prof. Friedrich Lochner's essay on Luther's hymn against the murdering Pope. The following was communicated to BackToLuther by past commenter "Carl Vehse" as a comment. But it was apparent that the complexity and the extent of his research deserved a separate full blog post to allow the full formatting required for a webpage presentation.  His research shows the "heavy lifting" required to extract all the details of this obscure, but important, change from the teaching of the Old Missouri Synod to that of the subsequent LC-MS (highlighting is mine): 

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

"Carl Vehse"

In its 1932 Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod: Of the Antichrist, the Missouri Synod clearly agreed with the Smalcald Article's statement about the pope as the Antichrist: "... Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

But then, in his article, "Changes in the Missouri Synod" (Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. XXXVIII, July-August, 1967, no. 7, pp. 458-78) Arthur C. Repp stated (p. 466):

 

Changes have taken place in the Missouri Synod also due to what may be called an error of judgment or a deep-seated prejudice which failed to recognize that an identification made in history cannot be placed on the same level as a clear enunciation from the Holy Scriptures. This may be seen in the Synod's stand on the identification of the Antichrist. In addition to the statement of the Smalcald Articles (Part II, IV, 10), which identifies the pope as "the real Antichrist," and Article 43 of the Brief Statement, the literature of the Missouri Synod abounds with many references identifying the papacy as the Antichrist.23

 

In 1951 and 1956 the President's Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Practice [Rev. Walter Nitschke; Rev. Carl Eberhard; Rev. Ottomar Krueger, D.D.; Prof. Walter W. Stuenkel] reported on the teaching concerning the Antichrist. The occasion for the report was an investigation of Dr. Arndt's essay which had treated this question. The committee reported

 

Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. It teaches that there will be an Antichrist (prophecy) . We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture.  The early Christians could not have identified the Antichrist as we do. If it were clearly expressed teaching of Scripture, they must have been able to do so. Therefore, the quotation from Lehre und Wehre "goes too far." 24

 

The committee's report further stated, "The conflict arises in holding that this identifying is a clearly expressed doctrine of Scripture, whereas it is not." (Ibid., p. 15) 

The report of the advisory committee together with an explanation issued in May 1956 was approved by the Synod in convention at St. Pau1.25 

23 E. g., William Dallmann, "The Pope, the Anti-Christ," The Lutheran Witness, XXVII (Oct. 28, 1908), 172; Western District Proceedings, 1869, p. 37: "If we would not hold that the Pope is the very Antichrist, we would thereby deny a doctrine clearly set forth in Scripture"; and Francis Pieper, Dogmatik, III, 532; English translation, 467.

 24 Report of Aug. 15, 1951, p. 14. The reference to Lehre und Wehre is from an article ["The Doctrinal differences between Missouri and Iowa]" by Georg Stoeckhardt, L ([Vol. 50] Nov. 1904), 492, "We confidently assert that it is a matter of accepting in faith or rejecting a clearly expressed doctrine of Scripture."

 25 Proceedings, 1956, p. 525. A "Statement on the Antichrist" was adopted by the Joint Committee of the Synodical Conference, Oct. 15, 1958, and submitted to the Synod in 1959 (Reports and Memorials for the San Francisco Convention), pp. 486--491. The statement reflected the more traditional viewpoint and was not acted upon since the Synodical Conference had no opportunity to consider it (Proceedings, San Francisco convention, 1959) pp.189-90. No subsequent consideration has been given to it by the Synod. 

Note that the adopted Resolution 7, Committee 3 Statement on the Antichrist (1959 LCMS Convention Proceedings, pp. 189-90) concluded:

 Resolved, That action on the Statement on the Antichrist be deferred until the Synodical Conference has had an opportunity to consider this statement of the Joint Committee.

So it seems that while a President's Advisory Committee and a Synodical Conference Joint Committee approved of the change, the LCMS convention deferred such approval  action.

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

The above highlighted statements by the LC-MS Prof. Repp and the committees essentially state that they do not agree with the Lutheran Confessions, specifically the Smalcald Articles, and so have judged themselves as not Lutherans. And the referenced article by Prof. Stoeckhardt in Lehre und Wehre identifies the LC-MS doctrine as the same as the Missouri Synod's opponent, the Iowa Synod. — I have been informed by the essayist that research on this matter is ongoing, so when there are updates to this, they will appear as amendments to this blog post.