Un6: Fundamental doctrines, narrow vs. broad sense

      This continues from Part 5 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of Walther's "Foreword" on Unionism to the 1871 volume of Lehre und Wehre. — In this installment, Walther gives special effort to intersperse comments into a defense writing of an orthodox Lutheran theologian against a Reformed-leaning theologian.  This was especially important for me as the traps that unionists set can be quite deceiving, even for those who consider themselves strong in faith. I took the time to separate Walther’s comments, in parentheses ( ),  from these writings to aid in my understanding. I learned about the distinction of fundamental doctrines in the narrow sense and the broader sense. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  continued from Part 5  - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

V. E. Löscher expresses himself similarly to Musaeus. He, too, recognizes the existence of truly believing Christians in the sects, and nonetheless rejects church fellowship with those who wish to remain in their sect. When in 1719 a theologian from Tübingen, who was of a unionist mind, pointed out in his paper "Die nöthige Glaubens-Einigkeit der protestantischen Kirche" (The Necessary Unity of Faith in the Protestant Church), as proof that one could also cultivate church fellowship with Reformed Christians, firstly that even our strictest theologians did not count the doctrine of the holy sacraments among the fundamental doctrines, and secondly that one could not declare all Reformed Christians under excommunication as unchristian, (page 9) Löscher answered him in a review of this paper: 

"From Hunnius and Hülsemann, he (the author) particularly states that they considered the point of justification by faith alone to be the actual foundation, but especially the doctrine of the sacraments not to be fundamental. But he deliberately does not want to see that sometimes, for good reasons, they take the foundation in the most exact sense, but sometimes in a proper and laudable amplitudine (breadth). The passages they cite refer to the first understanding" 

(to the fundamental doctrines in the narrowest sense, without the knowledge and acceptance of which no saving faith is possible); 

"but otherwise they also confess that all important doctrinal points, everything that the church must conserve, is in a sense" 

(that is, in a broader sense) 

"fundamental, hence they clearly remember the fundamenti organici" 

(the Scripture John 10:35, which cannot be broken at any point) 

"and make all kinds of other distinctions. The Consensus fundamentalis in the first and narrow sense entails nothing more than that one may hope something for the salvation of persons, but certainly no church unanimity. — On the other hand, he" 

(the author of that writing) 

"exaggerates greatly that ours excommunicated, banished, etc., so many thousands of souls of the Reformed. This, however, is entirely false; for we must beware of the church fellowship of the Calvinist-Reformists, and this must be done out of necessity, lest we be infected by them and have to bear their indebtedness before God." (Unschuldige Nachrichten [Innocent News], 1719, p. 890 f.)

But as little as our fathers wished to declare the members of erring fellowships banished by their rejection from our communion, so little did they mean to pronounce a sentence of condemnation upon them. They certainly condemned the errors of them, but not all persons who have them. Here, too, Löscher says:

"The question here is not of the Eventu (success) whether all are condemned who cherish the same" 

(condemned error of absolute predestination) 

"but of the inward duality, and whether this error in and of itself lies under divine doctrinal condemnation." (Ibid. 1733. p. 831.) 

Nor did our fathers declare heretics all those who were in error and with whom they had no church fellowship for the sake of the confession. They made a precise distinction between formal and material heresy, that is, between errors which supply the material for heresies and those which really are heresies, that is, which have become heresies through the attitude of those who cherish them. Thus, for example, Abraham Calov writes: "If a main article of faith, a fundamental dogma, an article from the system of that which is to be believed, is denied or overthrown, then this is materially a heresy; if (page 10) obstinacy is added to it, it is a formal heresy." (System, locc. th. Tom. VIII, 226. s.)

- - - - - - - - - -  concluded in Part 7  - - - - - - - - - - -

I am told that in Germany, Calvinism has taken over much of Protestantism at the expense of Lutheranism. And this has happened in the land of Luther!  How could this happen?  Through Unionism. And Walther gives the best defense against this menace. — Walther's stirring conclusion follows in Part 7.

Un5: Lutherans not "partakers of errors of others"

      This continues from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of Walther's "Foreword" on Unionism to the 1871 volume of Lehre und Wehre. — Here Walther gets into the heart of his defense of the Lutheran Church, and warns those who err against Biblical Christianity. — Walther’s teaching that even in the Roman Church there can be true believers becomes a part of the defense against Unionism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  continued from Part 4  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

With these principles of altar and pulpit fellowship, however, neither our Confession nor our theologians who are faithful to the Confession contradict themselves. If our church has constituted itself into a separate fellowship, it has not done so, nor does it do so now, because it thought or wanted to be Christ's church alone; but because it does not want to make itself partaker of the errors of others. It wants to be what every visible church should be, a confessional fellowship, and indeed a fellowship of pure confession. By its separate existence, therefore, it does not disassociate itself from the true Christians of the other church fellowships, but only from the errors of the latter. By its separate existence, it does not want to actually condemn and banish the believers in Christ among the erring [Irrgläubigen], or to shun them as heretics; it can only, while it considers itself inwardly most intimately united with them before God, so long as they stand in fellowship with the erring, in order not to deny the truth, not cultivate confessional fellowship with them, thus also not altar and pulpit fellowship. But just as he who separates himself from men for the sake of God's truth and honor is never to blame for the separation, but he who compels him to do so, so also the blame for the separation of the Lutherans from the true believers [Gläubigen] hidden among the erring lies not on the Lutherans, but partly on those who err, among whom some true believers are as if in captivity, and partly on the believers themselves, when they recognize the error of their fellowship and yet remain in it instead of leaving it and joining the banner of the orthodox. Those believers are suspended from the fellowship of orthodox believers by their involuntary membership in a sect, without being inwardly unworthy of this fellowship, just as, according to Matt. 5:23-24, those believers are suspended from Holy Communion without being in themselves unworthy communicants who are not yet reconciled to a brother; but those who voluntarily remain in the sect in spite of better knowledge suspend themselves from the fellowship of orthodox believers. The separate existence of our (page 8) church does not involve a schism, because it has not separated itself from the true church, but rather from the fellowships which had already caused "separation and trouble apart from the doctrine," in order not to share with them the sin of schism, but to remain in the unity of the true church.

This is also how our fathers viewed the matter. Thus, among others, the great Jena theologian Johannes Musaeus, who, as is well known, was often rebuked precisely because of his thoughtful stand against the Helmstadt syncretists, wrote, † 1681: 

“Concerning the communication in the doctrines of faith, although the disputing parties, as far as they are regarded as visible assemblies, do not communicate with the Lutheran Church, the true believers among them do communicate with it, who do not subscribe to the gross errors of the parties, but have and keep in their hearts the doctrine necessary for salvation, by God's grace, pure and unadulterated.... But concerning the use of the sacraments, other true believers cannot commune with us therein, unless the visible assembly, under which they are, communicate with us in the same, or they must leave the same and go out from it, as they are also bound to do, Rev. 18:4.” (Vertheidigung des unbeweglichen Grundes, dessen der Augsb. Conf. verwandte Lehrer zum Beweis ihrer Kirche sich gebrauchen. [Defense of the immovable ground, which teachers related to the Augsburg Confession use to prove their church.] Jena, 1654. p. 23. f.) 

How correct these principles are with respect to believing members of the Roman church, even the General Council will probably acknowledge; for we do not want to fear that in this body altar and pulpit fellowship will be considered permissible even with so-called Catholics, as long as they want to remain in the Roman church. But is it not a crying inconsistency not to extend this to all other erring fellowships? For if, for example, certain Reformed, as soon as and because they can be regarded as sincere Christians in love, are therefore to be admitted to our communion and to our pulpits, then one cannot, without contradicting oneself, exclude even a so-called Catholic, if he can be regarded as a Christian, whether he be a layman or a priest. 

- - - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 6  - - - - - - - - - - -

  This essay was published just before the final essay, in a series of 8 convention essays, that Walther delivered during the years 1866-1871. These essays carried the series title "The True Visible Church", a phrase that was used repeatedly in this essay. The two essays in 1868 were on the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification, and Walther here, in 1871, taught that this doctrine, and the Lord's Supper, must be protected from Unionism and syncretism. — In the next Part 6…

Un4: Reformed, Baptists, Methodists — their errors

      This continues from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of Walther's "Foreword" on Unionism to the 1871 volume of Lehre und Wehre. — I found most helpful how Walther gives the most basic leading error of the 3 major sects. What is their chief claim to… infamy? 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  continued from Part 3  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

These latter words must necessarily be added to those that deal with those who err out of simplicity within the sects, if one does not want to wantonly impute to our Confession a doctrine that it does not have. It is true that, according to the first quotation, our church is far from being able, e. g. from condemning all Reformed Christians who still err in the article of Holy Communion, or all Baptists who still err in the doctrine of infant baptism, or all Methodists who still err in the doctrine of the marks of the state of grace; but our church is as far from allowing a Reformed, Baptist, Methodist to her altar, or even a Reformed, Baptist, Methodist preacher to her pulpit, without having first "reminded, instructed, warned," and induced them to "go and turn to the infallible truth of the divine Word with us, and our churches and schools." On the contrary, our Church declares that in the opposite case "one blind man is led astray by another." 

Hence our church has also taken Luther's anti-unionistic judgment into its Confession and made it its own, “as the most distinguished teacher of the Augsburg Confession declares”: 

“I count them all in one pie, that is, for Sacramentarians and enthusiasts, such as they are, who do not want to believe that the Lord's bread in the Lord's Supper is His true natural body, which the ungodly and Judas receive orally just as much as St. Peter and all the saints; whoever, I say (page 6), does not want to believe this, let him leave me alone, and only hope for no fellowship with me; nothing else will come of it.” (Formula of Concord, Solid Decl., Art. VII.) [#33, Triglotta] 

Hereby our church publicly and solemnly renounces church fellowship, not only with the coarse Zwinglians, but also with the fine Calvinists; and he who does not do so with her, pleads in vain that he has signed all her confessions without reserve. In her best days, our church so little regarded the mere signing of her symbols as a sufficient proof of orthodoxy and of belonging to her, that she rather excluded from co-signing those who were suspected of false doctrine and who nevertheless wished to sign. The formal confession, if it does not become a deed, is not only worthless, but can even be used as a shield to protect against just attacks. But how much our Church demands of a church in order to be able to enter into fellowship with it, it states clearly and unambiguously in the following words of our confession: "We also believe, teach, and confess that no church should condemn the other, that one has less or more external ceremonies uninvited by God than the other, if otherwise in doctrine and all the articles thereof, as well as in the right use of the holy sacraments, it has kept unity with one another". (Formula of Concord. Epitome. Art. X.)

That all the orthodox teachers of our church have ever taught and acted in accordance with this confession needs no proof for anyone who knows them even to a certain extent. Whoever desires testimony to this will find it abundantly communicated in the report of the negotiations of our Synod of the Western District of the year 1870. [Walther's Works: Church Fellowship, pgs 145-192] We repeat here only the following from the great number of pertinent quotations communicated. 

Georg König, Professor primarius at Altorf, † 1654, a theologian who was praised above others for being "a peace-loving man," writes: [Church Fellowship p. 184-185]

"If a Calvinist desires that a Lutheran preacher administer the Lord's Supper to him, then he is either a layman or a preacher, and the latter is either uninformed or well-instructed. If he is uninformed, he will perhaps not know the difference which exists between us and the Calvinists in regard to this doctrine, especially since the latter also want to pretend that they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Lord's Supper. Then one must take the greatest care not to admit him to the Lord's Supper, since he knows nothing of the matter and is still filled with his delusion. Rather, he must first be openly instructed as to how far we differ from one another in this doctrine, and it must be clearly explained why one part can neither commune with the other, (page 7) because the Supper of the Lord, among other final purposes, also has to be a mark and watchword of the religion that each one professes. For those who fellowship with a church in the reception of this sacrament, thereby publicly confess that they accept the doctrine of that church, and reject that which is contrary to it, and thus separate themselves from the others. It is therefore necessary that he first accept our confession, reject Calvinism as erroneous, and separate himself from it, if he wishes to partake of our communion. Rather, however, this caution will be needed if the Calvinist is a well-informed one." (Casus conscientiae, p. 597. sq.)

- - - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 5 - - - - - - - - - - -

In the next Part 5, Walther turns up the heat in his warning against… Unionism.

Un3: Christians are among erring, but no fellowship with them; "our little Lutheran Zion"

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of Walther's 1871 Lehre und Wehre "Foreword" on Unionism. — Walther carefully reviews the difficult distinction between the teaching that there are Christians in the erring sects and that fellowship with them by Lutherans cannot be allowed. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  continued from Part 2  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Every true Lutheran will of course heartily agree when it says in the “Preface” to our confessional book: [from the German; English: § 20 Triglotta]

"As for the Condemnationes, the establishment and condemnation of false and impure doctrine, especially in the article of the Lord's (page 4) Supper, they must be expressly and distinctly stated in this declaration and thorough exposition of the disputed articles, so that men may beware of them, and for many other reasons may not be evaded: Similarly, it is not our will and opinion that this refers to persons who err out of simplicity and do not blaspheme the truth of the divine Word, but rather to entire churches within and outside the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, but that with this alone the false and seductive doctrines and the same stiff-necked teachers and blasphemers, whom we by no means intend to tolerate in our dominions, churches and schools, are actually rejected (palam reprehendere et damnare), because they are contrary to the expressed Word of God and cannot exist alongside it; that devout hearts may be warned for the same. Since we have no doubt at all that many pious, innocent people are to be found even in the churches, which have not hitherto compared themselves with us, who walk in the simplicity of their hearts, do not rightly understand the matter, and have no pleasure at all in the blasphemies against the Holy Supper, as it is held in our churches according to the foundation of Christ, and is unanimously taught by virtue of the words of His testament."

Indeed, herewith a comfort is expressed for us Lutherans, which we cannot let ourselves be snatched away from at any price, the comfort, namely, that Christ's invisible church of pardoned and blessed Christians lies hidden even among the most erroneous sects, as long as these still essentially retain God's Word; that therefore our little Lutheran Zion is by no means the Church, apart from which Christ has no subjects and apart from which there is no salvation, the church xxx έξοχή. We, the Missourians, have for several decades been in a hot fight with Buffalo, which, in good Papist fashion, wanted to make the visible Lutheran Church the Church of the Third Article, the One, Holy, Christian, Catholic Church, and rejected the doctrine of our Church, that outside of it there is also Christ's Church and therefore grace, salvation, office, calling, keys, etc., as unionist fanaticism. But the question whether there are true believers and children of God outside the Lutheran Church, and the question whether one can have pulpit and altar fellowship with members of an erring fellowship, are quite different, so that our church, as decidedly as it affirms the first question, just as decidedly denies the other. 

It is true that our Church acknowledges that even in the erring fellowships there are "many pious innocent people who walk in simplicity of heart," but she does not say that with such, even if they live in the erring fellowships, she can have pulpit and altar fellowship. (page 5) The former concerns the belief that there is an invisible church extending over the whole of baptized Christendom; the latter, on the other hand, concerns the proper form of a true visible church. Immediately after the above testimony from the Preface to our Book of Concord, our church, speaking of those true believers in the sects, continues thus:

"Hopefully, when they are properly instructed in doctrine, they will, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, go and turn to the infallible truth of the divine Word with us and away from churches and schools. As then it is incumbent upon the theologians and ministers of the church, that from God's word they also duly remind and admonish those who err out of simplicity and ignorance, of the danger of their souls, lest one blind man be led astray by another." 3) 

————————

3) It should not be forgotten here that the preface mentioned also belongs to our church Confession as an integrating part of it, therefore the signature given to the Book of Concord also refers to this preface of it, indeed, that especially this Preface determines the meaning of the signature. Cf. Carpzov's Isag. in libros symb. 14. 29. and Hutter's Concordia concors, c. 24, p. 106. and c. 26, p. 208.

- - - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 4  - - - - - - - - - - -

Walther speaks of "the most erroneous sects" above — so who are these "sects" and what are their chief errors?  We find out in the next Part 4. 

Un2: The General Council turns away from orthodoxy

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of Walther's "Foreword" to the 1871 volume of Lehre und Wehre on Unionism. — Walther continues his searching essay exposing the mediating General Council. He originally had high hopes that Pastor Brobst of that synod, pictured below in the left panel, would have enough influence to bring them to a pure confession of the truth.  One finds many references to Brobst in the early years of Der Lutheraner,  but now we see that Brobst's proposals to his Council were rejected and so he was surely disappointed in this. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  continued from Part 1  - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Accordingly, it is clear that the [General] Council does not want to reject all errorists, but only open heretics, in addition to those who cherish errors in which salvation is impossible, such as Socinians, Unitarians, Universalists, and Rationalists, for the Council gives the exact definition of a heretic in the words cited. It fearfully avoids being specific and declaring that, in short, it wanted all non-Lutherans, e.g. all Reformed, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., to be rejected from their pulpits and altars. 1) The Council allows those who err because of weakness (as a result of upbringing and instruction (page 3) and of prejudices imbibed under certain relationships), in short, all those whom it believes it can still consider Christians in the erring fellowships.

__________ 

1) How the Council stands as a whole is shown by the fact that it rejected the version of the answer proposed to it by Pastor Brobst, which was also read out, as the Lutheran and Missionary [C. P. Krauth, Editor] reports, and instead adopted the most flexible version. In the version proposed by Pastor Brobst it had said, among other things: “Since communion and pulpit fellowship are church fellowship, it must be established as a general rule that only Lutheran Christians are to be admitted to Lutheran altars and only orthodox Lutheran pastors are to be admitted to preach on Lutheran pulpits." But that was already too clear (?) a tone. It sounded too anti-unionist and could have offended the delicate ears of the distinguished Presbyterian and Methodist "brethren." We say advisedly that it shows how the Council as a whole stands, for Brobst's proposals show that individual members of it stand quite differently. But a church body is not to be judged by those who are not heard [i.e. Pastor Brobst, and Prof. Krauth] in it, but by those who are the deciders.

We confess that we had little hope that the Council would give a reasonably satisfactory answer to the questions presented by Minnesota; but that the former would venture so brazenly into the light with such crass unionist principles, we had not expected. After the omissions of Dr. Krotel and some others, the alternative arose that either they would have to leave the Council, or that the Council would have to declare itself Unionist; but in view of the progress which this body had made in Lutheran organization during the last few years, it did not seem impossible that it would rather sacrifice some of its most gifted men than offer them the pure Lutheran character. It evidently preferred the latter, however.

To be sure, the Council points out in its justification that 

"in harmony with the confessions and theologians of our Church, the General Assembly of the Church makes a distinction between such doctrines as are fundamental to the continuance of Christianity, i.e. 'essential to the true knowledge of Christ and to faith in Him'; and between such doctrines as are fundamental to the whole completeness of our Christian faith, i.e. 'essential to the true knowledge of Christ and to faith in Him'; without which one cannot hope to be saved. "between such doctrines as are fundamental to the true knowledge of Christ and faith in Him, without which one cannot hope to be saved; and between such doctrines as are fundamental to the whole completeness of our Christian faith, i.e., to the complete and faultless (absolute) perfection of Christian doctrine, without which, if one does not wish to judge uncharitably, it may yet be possible to attain to salvation."— 2)

alone, correct as this distinction is, there is no justifying reason in it for the Council's unionist practice.

________________

2) We quote from the German text of the Council's resolutions given by Pastor Brobst.

- - - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 3  - - - - - - - - - - -

Walther highlights the tactic of unionists to avoid being specific in their wording.  After Luther's death, some Lutherans were avoiding the term "sola fide" in a proposed settlement with Catholics (Augsberg Interim). This is a good lesson for all Christians as they judge the teaching of the various church denominations, even within Lutheranism. — In the next Part 3…