M09: “Beloved Baumgärtner” testifies against M.; praise of Bente's history from Paul…; LCMS Doctrinal Review?

[2024-05-02: added material at bottom in red on official LCMS criticism of Bente's history]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -       This continues from Part 8 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — In this segment, the strong testimony of Baumgärtner. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 332-334 [EN]: 

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 9 of 28  - - - - - - -

How necessary it was for Melanchthon, in Augsburg in 1530, that Luther strengthened him over and over again, can be seen from the drastic description that the brave deputy of the city of Nuremberg, Heronymus Baumgärtner, who was present at the private negotiations with the papists, makes of Melanchthon's behavior. He writes under September 13, 1530 from Augsburg to the Nuremberg (LuW 333) Council secretary Lazarus Spengler, among other things, the following: 

“God has ordained us, but by grace, that the [Augsburg] Confession is out and once delivered, otherwise our theologians would long ago have confessed otherwise: how they would like to act where they would be followed, even though they are unequal to each other. Philip is more childish, for he has become a child. … 

The Elector… has no one of understanding in this matter, except Dr. Brück, who is but few; but he has been brought to the point where he now also deals with worries, because he has no support from anyone. For the other Saxon theologians are not allowed to speak publicly against Philip, for he stretched out his head so much that he said the other day against the Lüneburg Chancellor: ‘He who may say that the next means given are not Christian, lies as a villain.’ To this he was answered: ‘Whoever says the contradiction,’ etc. And besides, one does not cease to denigrate in many ways those who show themselves Christian and brave in this; as the Hessians, who have behaved quite well and honestly in this respect, publicly complain to us; be careful that we will also be treated in the same way. In sum, if we do not soon receive a harsh, ungracious farewell from the Emperor's Majesty, we will not be let go until we are brought into the traps, so that we forfeit God's grace and do not obtain the Emperor's.  For the essence has so far steadily granted: as often the princes with each other, so one comes to the Elector ridden, tells him how he means the matter faithfully and well etc.; he has understood this or that from the Emperor, and if one escaped alone in this or that matters etc., the matter could still be helped: immediately Philip is there, makes articles, glosses them etc.. ... In the meantime, this is carried by” (the Brandenburg Chancellor) “Heller and Brenz also to the Margrave; if we are required to do so, and we do not allow ourselves to enjoy the pre-cooked porridge, then it is of an unwillingness, and the theologians run around, saying that we may not suffer peace; as if peace could certainly be obtained by our yielding; (we) only wanted to strike a blow with the Landgrave, whom they then truly disparage miserably in this… It is therefore necessary to call upon God diligently to help the things themselves, for they have indeed come beyond the reason of men.  Periit lex a prophetis et sapientia a sapientibus. [“The law of the prophets and the wisdom of the wise have perished.”] The one or other snipe still has a beak to sing in a Christian and constant way, which is why he was often mocked scurrilously by the others; outside of him, we theologians all wanted to be one with adversity. (Unschuld. Nachrr. [Löscher]. 1730. p. 392. ff.) 

On September 15th of the same year, the same Baumgärtner again wrote to the Nuremberg Council: 

“Therefore I ask you, for God's sake and for the sake of His Word, to do your part and to write to Doctor Martin Luther that he, as the one through whom God first opens His Word to the world, will come running to Philip with power and yet warn the pious princes (LuW 334), but especially his own master [the Elector], towards him and admonish them to perseverance. *) 

——————

*) The beloved Baumgärtner probably did not know that Luther had already written the following to Augsburg on August 26 to Spalatin: 

“I hear that you have undertaken, though not gladly, a wonderful work, namely to unite the Pope and Luther with each other. But the Pope will not want to, and Luther refuses to do so; take care that you do not spend your efforts in vain. If you have done this against the will of both of you, then I will immediately reconcile Christ and Belial with each other, following your example. I know, however, that you have not been drawn to this vain effort of your own free will, but by chance, or rather by the hooded ghosts of Speier. Christ, who has been your strength up to now, will also now be your wisdom, that those Italian cunning intrigues against you will do nothing. For evil counsel is most evil to the counselor. Greet Master Eisleben, Dr. Brenz, Schnepf and all ours.” (Letters, de Wette. IV, 144 [StL 16, 1406, #1060]) 

By the way, Luther later received news from Nuremberg about the dangerous settlements Baumgärtner complained about against Spengler and therefore wrote the most serious letters to Melanchthon, Jonas and Link. (op. cit. p. 168 ff. [StL 21, 1569 #1702]) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 10  - - - - - - - - - -

The “Beloved Baumgärtner” is also mentioned in Bente's history, but characteristically not in Dr. Kolb's history. Could Dr. Robert Kolb be guilty of the "bias" or "agenda" that the "1517." podcasters speak about? — In the next Part 10…

- - - - - - - - -   LC-MS Theologians, Historians: Rev. Paul McCain   - - - - - - - - - -

      After growing weary of the army of LC-MS theologians and pastors criticizing Prof. Bente's history, it was quite a shock to read the "Preface to the Reprinting" of CPH's 2005 reprint of Bente's work. The author of this "Preface" is not given. Not only does it not criticize Bente, it… well, the reader will get the sense of it from this excerpt (all emphases are mine):

“…to thank and praise the Lord of the Church for His rich and varied blessings through specific persons, … Professor Friedrich Bente knew this better than most as he labored to produce this historical introduction to the various documents contained in the Book of Concord. Even though Bente reflects older scholarship, and may strike some as too strident in the positions he embraces and the manner in which he writes of his subject matter, his unqualified acceptance of the Book of Concord as a true and unadulterated exposition of the Word of God makes his work extremely helpful for our day and age. While more contemporary treatments of this same subject matter supply many helpful insights and perspectives, they do not surpass Bente’s passionate commitment to being and remaining truly Lutheran. In fact, modern treatments of the same subjects must be very carefully evaluated since they are produced in part by theologians who have intentionally surrendered key points of Lutheran doctrine for the sake of various ecumenical compromises. Intense commitment to the truth confessed in the Book of Concord reflects itself on each page of Bente’s work. He was not interested in creating a novel work to be admired and praised by academia or the guild of scholars. His concern was to provide a resource for those who bear the name Lutheran, and all who wish to understand why the Lutheran church treasures her precious ‘Concordia.’”

“contemporary treatment”

 I have had to check the date of this Bente reprint with the date of the 2012 Fortress Press book The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the Book of Concord by Robert Kolb, Charles Arand, and James Nestingen [see Part 6] several times because it seemed that the Preface for Bente was specifically warning against Dr. Kolb's 2012 history as a "contemporary treatment".  Even now, it seems the author of this Preface for the Bente reprint would have had knowledge that Dr. Kolb was already, since 2001, working on his 2012 book, as Kolb reveals in his Preface to it. — But who would write such a highly praiseworthy report of Bente's work?? Who would "stick their neck out" in the face of overwhelming opposition to Bente's history in the LC-MS?  Who would claim that modern histories "do not surpass Bente’s passionate commitment to being and remaining truly Lutheran"? Who would stand up to great scholars such at Dr. Lowell C. Green, who publicly impugned Bente's history over several decades within the LC-MS? I believe that author was 

Rev. Paul T. McCain († Nov. 25, 2020).

And even if it was not actually McCain who authored this Preface, it would have been McCain's influence, as Publisher for CPH, that got that Preface written as it is.  And for that reason may the name of Rev. Paul T. McCain be remembered in the Church and, with him, may we give "thanks and praise to the Lord of the Church for His rich and varied blessings through … Prof. Friedrich Bente."

      Ah, but today's LC-MS podcasters have an opposite opinion on Bente's methodology. Their comments are documented in Part 17.

- - - - - - - - - - - -  2024-05-02: ADDED SECTION  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      I have discovered not only anecdotal evidence of opposition to Bente's history, but now official evidence: Paul McCain's first 2005 edition of his Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions publication was chastised in 2006 (Reporter article) for various reasons by the "LCMS Commission on Doctrinal Review" in its "Concordia decision". Among its decisions was the following comment: 

17. In the introductions to both the Smalcald Articles (hereafter SA) (page 282) and the FC (page 530), an unfair and inaccurate caricature of Philip Melanchthon is repeated, following Bente. The one-sided charges have been refuted by recent scholarship, but are here repeated and perpetuated, distorting the historical truth and introducing an anti-Melanchthon bias especially to the understanding of the Formula.

The historical assessment of Philip Melanchthon is not a doctrinal matter. But repeating Bente’s notorious anti-Melanchthon bias is not an adequate presentation of the current state of confessional scholarship. As mentioned elsewhere, an edition of the Book of Concord must be held to high standards, also in terms of historical scholarship.

What the LCMS Committee did not acknowledge is that their criticism of Bente equally applies to Walther, for Bente was only following Walther's clear testimony. It is not known what "confessional scholarship" was being referenced by the Committee, but I suspect they are referring to Drs. Robert Kolb and Lowell Green. I will take Walther's and Bente's Lutheran, confessional scholarship over the LCMS "current state of confessional scholarship". And thank God, Editor Paul McCain did not remove the offending text in the 2006 Second Edition (p. 470 or view at right).

M08: “ambiguous behavior”, Calvin: “bread adoration”; "Banned Books" Ban Bente

[2023-08-10: added note in red at bottom about Pastor Donovan Riley]

      This continues from Part 7 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — Walther translates and introduces Melanchthon's surprising correspondence with Calvin. — This portion is taken from LuW, 22, pp. 331-332 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 8 of 28  - - - - - - -

John Calvin

Even Melanchthon's most intimate friends repeatedly complain about his ambiguous behavior, that he never speaks with any real conviction, but continues to dissimulate, and is eager to be taken for his own by opposing parties. Thus, for example, Calvin, annoyed by Melanchthon's silence on Luther's attacks on the Swiss, wrote to Melanchthon: 

“In fact, we leave the descendants a horrible (foedum) example, in that we would rather give away all freedom without constraint than to touch the mind of a single man unpleasantly with a small annoyance. … If this example of tyranny appears at the very beginning of the rebirth of the Church, what will happen in the short term when things have worsened? … I confess that what you teach is perfectly true, and that you have so far endeavored to keep minds from quarreling by a mild doctrine; I praise your wisdom and moderation.  But by fleeing this point as a cliff, so that you do not offend certain people, you leave in uncertainty and darkness very many who ask of you something more certain, on which they can rest.  However, as I once said to you, it does us little honor to not even sign in ink the doctrines that many saints leave behind sealed with their blood.” (J. Calvini epp. Lausannae, 1576. p. 135. f.) 

In 1551, Calvin reproached Melanchthon: 

“With a few turns of the wheel you alone have aroused more lamentations and sighs than a hundred insignificant persons with their manifest apostasy.” (L. c. p. 213) 

In 1554, the same wrote to Melanchthon: 

“The other day I wrote to you about that point of doctrine in which you dissimulate your opinion more than you dissent from us. … Nothing is of so great importance that your dissimulation should loosen the reins of the raging men” ([Joachim] Westphal and others [Gnesio Lutherans]) “for the confusion and dispersion of the Church.  To say nothing of how precious a sincere confession of sound doctrines should be to us.  You know that for more than thirty years the eyes of an innumerable multitude have been fixed on you, and they have desired nothing more than to learn from you. Indeed, is it unknown to you today that so many are in doubt because of that ambiguous doctrinal form which you hold all too fearfully?” (LuW 332) (op. cit. p. 298. f.) 

In the following year, the same person [Calvin] wrote to him: 

“About artolatry” (Bread adoration, by which Calvin understands the Lutheran faith in Holy Communion) “the inner opinion of your heart has long been known to me, which you also do not conceal in your letters. But I resent that indecision of yours (tarditas).” (p. 339) 

In the same year Calvin wrote to Sleidan: 

“How much I should congratulate myself on Philip's approval of one thing, I would not know, since in the most important main parts he either openly denies the healthy doctrines by selling himself to the philosophers, or, in order not to incur the hatred of certain people, cunningly, at least not quite sincerely, conceals his opinion. (Historia motuum by Löscher. II, 37) 

The same exhibition that Melanchthon was dissimulating, deliberately speaking ambiguously, was made by Calvin's friends. Blaurer wrote to Calvin in 1558: 

“I had expected better things of Melanchthon, and I am very surprised that this great man is not of equal courage (animo), but always, when the time comes, takes on the old weakness. … May he” (Melanchthon) “at least dissimulate, he will not be able to deny himself. To many he has written many things with great humility, whereby he does not vaguely attest to how far he is from the opinion of those who superstitiously think and speak of the Lord's Supper” (Melanchthon). (Calvini epp. p. 431) 

Even [Jacob] Sturm, Melanchthon's great admirer, must confess: “Philip would have been right if he had presented his opinion simply and without ambiguity. (Antipappus sec. p. 139) Zanchi writes to Bullinger: “Philip is fearful, so that he often does what he himself does not approve of.” (Unschuld. Nachrr., 1730, p. 385) The Elector Johann Frederick was so well known of Melanchthon's inclination to make a false peace that in 1535, although Luther himself was responsible for sending Melanchthon to France, the former wrote to [Dr. Gregor] Brück: 

“We are not a little worried that if Philip travels in France, he will, with his great wisdom and diligence to bring the king to an opinion, let up much that Dr. Martin and the other theologians will not be able to concede.” (Corp. Reform. II, p. 909) *) 

——————

*) Melanchthon himself complained to Calvin, who therefore wrote to [Guillaume] Farell about this: “Either he himself does not know his own attitude, or he conceals it (dissimulat). (Epp. Calv. p. 30) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 9  - - - - - - - - - -

Even Melanchthon's admirers were critical of his ambiguity. — In the next Part 9…

- - - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing "Podcasters":   - - - - - - - - -

Pastors Christopher Gillespie and Donovan Riley

      "Banned Books"?  What does the title of their podcast mean? What books are they referring to in their title?  Who is banning them? Ostensibly the title suggests certain books have been "banned" in the past and they are going to recover them for their "good" content. — 

      As with "The Thinking Fellows" podcasters, the "Banned Books" pastor podcasters Christopher Gillespie and Donovan Riley also have nothing good to say about Prof. F. Bente's Historical Introductions.  The following is a condensed transcript of a Dec. 5, 2018 podcast dealing with books they recommend, and don't recommend, for a Southern Baptist student listener:

• Gillespie (~57:15): Here's a good one. Um, I hope to purchase more. Okay. So this is a, a Baptist, Southern Baptist going to the Southern Baptist Seminary. Well, there you go. …he's been reading our, our books and say they're a blessing, the ones we've been recommending. Good. … he wants recommendations on books that help better understand Lutheranism and its history. Please send me a long list. (57:51) Well, Lutheranism is kind of a muddied mess of, uh, history, right? I think it's not uniform. … (58:16) Early the beginning of the show, we dealt with that hard question on Election, and you quoted Formula of Concord 11 in the the old Concordia edition, the Triglotta beginning, it had Bente's kind of history of Lutheranism, at least in the era of the Confessions. And, uh, but it's, it's got a pretty strong bent to it, you know, as to who he's rejecting. You know, it's not, there isn't really a, what do you wanna say? an analytical treatment.  Everybody's got a horse in the race, right? I mean, or some kind of agenda. So regardless of what…

"Strong bent"? "No analytical treatment"? "Everybody's got a horse in the race"? "Some kind of agenda"?  These phrases all echo what Drs. Scott Keith and Adam Francisco, "The Thinking Fellows", charge against Bente's history as "biased", "partial" (See Part 7). At this point our pastors go into their opinions of the history of "Luther Scholarship" and the need for works of "critical scholarship", presumably to avoid a "strong bent" and an "agenda", and not "have a horse in the race". Mention is made of books by Bo Giertz, Wilhelm Pauck, and probably Jaroslav Pelikan. Presumably these are the "Banned Books" their title speaks of, that these books don't have a "strong bent" or "an agenda". — 

• Riley (1:02:08): And so like that, you've mentioned Bente, Bente is he, he doesn't, he's not a big fan of Philip Melanchthen <laugh>. [Is Riley "a big fan" of Melanchthon?]
• Gillespie (1:02:17): [hearty laughing] That's an understatement. [laughing by both] 
• Riley (1:02:18): And thus you, if you read Bente, his Introduction then to, uh, the Book of Concord, you might get the impression that Melanchthon was a bumbling idiot who derailed the, the Reformation and ruined everything. [This hyperbole betrays a lack of "impartiality."] Um, which isn't true entirely. [Not entirely?? How “not entirely”?] He just wasn't Luther… 
• Gillespie (1:02:34): <laugh>. Right. I mean, Bente is caught up in the whole Unaltered Augsburg Confession Controversy. [So "Banned Books" pastors are not defenders of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession?] And that, and thus to my point, is every generation is embroiled in its battles and thus how it does history and how it confesses its doctrine will be filtered through that particular time and that particular debate and that particular context. [i.e. its "strong bent", "agenda", "bias"]

Bente's history is the butt of laughing and snickering by these LC-MS pastors. — A little later in this podcast, the pastors identify the mission of their podcast:

• Riley (1:03:42): Our goal is essentially to attack and eliminate anything that gets in the way of Christ being for you, for the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.

Admirable goal indeed!  So their attack on Bente’s history means that Bente "gets in the way of Christ being for you, for the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation"? But "Banned Books" does not, and cannot, prove this in any way.  For it is even acknowledged by Dr. Robert Kolb, who is no friend of Bente or the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, that Melanchthon played a significant role in the "Leipzig Interim" and stated in his 2001 Fortress Press Sources and Contexts book (p. 183) that "the statement of the final draft regarding justification… contained ambiguous language". So does "Banned Books" not defend against "ambiguous language" in the doctrine of Justification as Bente vigorously does?  I think not. So why the angst against Bente?  Could it be that "Banned Books" does not have a "strong bent" for Lutheranism, for Lutheran Confessionalism, for the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, (i.e. Christian doctrine) as Bente had? — Interestingly, in their survey of books on Lutheranism, these pastors did not mention Dr. Robert Kolb's (et al.) Fortress Press 2012 History and Theology of the Book of Concord as Dr. Scott Keith did (in Part 6). Surely that should be at the top of their list for books to replace Bente's "banned" book?

==>> Doesn't "Banned Books" really mean to Ban Bente (and Walther)?

      More will be brought out from their podcast in a later posts. One of these pastors had a surprising teaching on Justification that does not fit with other points they made.

[2023-08-10: Interestingly, on October 29, 2010, (Rev) Donovan Riley posted feedback on Paul T. McCain's blog stating that he would purchase a new printing of Bente's translation of the Triglotta. So while he warns against Bente's History, he was apparently not against buying, and giving away, Bente's Triglotta translation of the Book of Concord.]

M07: M.'s private letters; “objectivity” of modern history?; "Thinking Fellows" "biased" against Bente

      This continues from Part 6 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — In this segment, Walther exposes the "astonishing" letters of Melanchthon, quite a contrast to those of Martin Luther during these times. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 329-331 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 7 of 28  - - - - - - -

That not too much is made of this depiction of Melanchthon is proven by many of his still existing private letters, both to certain persons among the Lutherans of whom he knew, or nevertheless believed that he did not need to get nervous in front of them, and to the south Germans and Swiss, to whom he thought he could open up his innermost being without any danger of betraying himself.  If one reads these letters, one must be astonished at how quite differently Melanchthon's position appears in them than in his public appearances and his intercourse with Luther. These letters are full of the bitterest reproaches against Luther, while in what the faithful Luther wrote, however, there is not a single line in which the same Melanchthon would have secretly belittled others in any way. [The Sad, Secret Life of Melanchthon] 

[Moritz] Meurer himself must admit the latter in his biography of Melanchthon (p. 82), even though, according to the now popular historical “impartiality” and “objectivity”, he blames both the “dear men of God” for the disproportion between Luther and Melanchthon quite equally. [Just like Prof. Mayes with Walther and Grabau, 2011!] As for Melanchthon's bitter attacks on Luther, he wrote, to only share a few things here, (LuW 330) when Luther had given a serious sermon against secret vows in 1544, including the following to his [Johann] Camerarius:

“On the day I arrived, our own” (he always means Luther by this) “preached a sermon here, in which he pestered the jurists not with the dignity of a Pericles, but with the frankness of a Cleon.” (Corp. Ref. V, 293) 

Otherwise, Melanchthon repeatedly calls Luther “our Pericles” in his letters to trusted friends, in order to mark Luther's allegedly stormy nature. (cf. pp. 292. 464. 495., where he calls Luther Xanthippides.) [John] Calvin also gives Luther this nickname (Epp. 13, 5), but whether he has borrowed it from Melanchthon or Melanchthon from Calvin is uncertain, the former being the most likely.  After Camerarius had replied to Melanchthon's letter, the latter wrote again: 

“That you think that these harsh sermons against the jurists cause me pain, you are not mistaken. What is this before the people? How untimely it is now! … Yes, they (!) [Walther’s “!” criticizes M. for excluding himself.] think that he has no cause for it and lets himself be ruled by paralysis, as he usually does against others.” (p. 310) 

By the way, this unjust rebuke was soon to cause Melanchthon great shame. Not long after that, Luther, among others, also released Melanchthon's son from a secret betrothal as an unjust one, the fulfillment of which would have been a misfortune for the family.  (See Luther's Letters, de Wette. V, 676 [StL 10, 1728 ff.]) 

Heinrich Bullinger
Reformed theologian

 Even to Bullinger of Zurich he [Melanchthon] wrote secretly already on March 25, 1544: 

“If harsher letters are written by some from these regions, we, the rest of us, want to cultivate the consensus and the friendly binding among us and not allow our churches to be torn apart even more.” (p. 342) 

But when he learned that Luther was going to let another serious letter go out against the Zwinglians, he wrote to the same Bullinger on August 30th: 

“Perhaps before this letter of mine reaches you, you will receive an extremely gruesome copy of Luther's in which he renews the dispute about the Holy Scriptures.  He has never treated this matter with greater impetuosity. I therefore no longer hope for the peace of the Church. Our enemies will be puffed up defending the idols of the monks, and our churches will be more torn asunder.” (p. 475) 

On the same occasion, he writes to Bucer on August 28th: 

“I have written to you through Milichius of our Pericles, who again began to thunder about the Holy Communion in the most violent way and wrote a horrible (atrocem) book, which has not yet been published, in which we, I and you, are being taken through the worst (sugillamur). (p. 474) 

In the same year he wrote to Veit Dietrich. 

“About the other question, how in the Lord's Supper are ten categories, I do not want you to say much; also I did not want to ask the teacher (τόν διδάσκαλον = Luther), because whoever asks him, he listens to him (LuW 331) with anger (ργίλω) and answers him indefinitely (ού σαφως).” (p. 728) 

After the publication of the “Brief Confession” he wrote to the Zwinglian-minded [Wolfgang] Musculus of Augsburg: 

“It is truly regrettable that the churches are invited in our time more, as the Homeric warriors say: ‘Let us now go to the meal, that we may reconcile the God of war’, than as Christ invites us, who wants the covenant of true and not disguised goodwill to be made in this rite. … I wish that the Swiss would not respond to Luther's latest book, nor wear fire to the fire.” (p. 525) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 8  - - - - - - - - - -

F. Bente also documents "Melanchthon's Private Views" in Chapter 200 of his history, just like Walther does. More from Melanchthon's letters and even the letters of John Calvin in the next Part 8. 

- - - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing Theologians, "Podcasters":   - - - - - - - - -

Drs. Scott Keith, Adam Francisco Rod Rosenbladt, host Caleb Keith

 

      Walther scoffs at “the now popular historical ‘impartiality’ and ‘objectivity’” of the German church historian Meurer of his time. This is matched in our times by Dr. Lowell Green, in his 1980 book, when he lowers the honor due to Martin Luther in order to raise the estimation of Philip Melanchthon. (More about this in a future blog.) — Today “The Thinking Fellows” podcasters are even more explicit in promoting this “popular” methodology against… what? Maybe imagination? They speak thus in their podcast of May 19, 2017 (using the first names they use among themselves):

• Scott (~06:08): If you look at, if you listen to one of the past episodes, I don't know when this is going to air, as opposed to the episode we did on Luther biographies. And, and Adam [Adam Francisco] pretty much took the first half and explained to us what makes a good history. His historical account, something. And one of the things that was brought up was, you know, do your best to put your biases on the shelf, or at the very least, acknowledge your biases. Um, the problem with Bente is he does neither with that. His bias towards Melanchthon is neither, put on the shelf, nor is it acknowledged.

“Bias”? Dear God! If Bente was not "biased" towards the Lutheran Confessions (i.e. he subscribed to them as accurately teaching what Scripture teaches), then he could hardly call himself a "confessional Lutheran"! Franz Pieper’s counsel on “Historical Theology” is the perfect response to this charge in his Christian Dogmatics I, p. 100:

“It is the function of historical theology not only to give a historically true picture of the events, but also to evaluate these established facts in the light of Scripture.  Historical theology is the divinely taught art of ascertaining from Scripture God's verdict on the historical events and conditions.  That is what makes church history a theological discipline.  When the church historian judges events according to his subjective view or any other extra-Biblical norm, church history is no longer a theological discipline.”  (my bolding)

Host Caleb Keith then adds youthful emphasis to the above charge

• Caleb (06:45): I remember reading Bente years ago, 15 years, more than 15 years ago, and then a couple years ago I was reading it again, and I remember texting Scott saying, what the <emphasis> heck is this? … And I don't remember what it was, but it was, he’s just this constant critique. And sometimes it's, it's total, um, what Paul Maier [Paul L. Maier, the “44” sympathizer] would call B.S. [Bull Sh__?] Before Scholarship <EMPHASIS> NONSENSE  about Melanchthon. … it's a confessional <emphasis> punch against this guy [Melanchthon] who's a, who's the, the boogieman if you will.

Caleb Keith offers no basis for his change from 15 years earlier where he apparently did not have the same judgment of Bente as he did in this podcast. Why? Dr. Scott Keith then offers this comment against Bente's history:

• Scott (07:20): Bente's work is largely based on a German work by, I think it's, I want, uh, somebody Kolde, [Kolde’s book] a, I forgot the first name, is K o l d e.

Dr. Keith is referring to Theodore Kolde of whom the 1927 Concordia Cyclopedia said was "one of the most noted historians of the Reformation period and defender of Luther against Catholic attacks." This is also a strange comment as even his mentor, Dr. Lowell Green, in his 1980 book, offers no critical remarks against Kolde’s scholarship, even praising Kolde’s edition of Corpus Reformatorium on p. 127 f.n.#6. Even more, Bente's history is hardly based on Kolde as Bente judiciously uses dozens of other sources, like a good historian would.  The "Thinking Fellows" can "think" all they want, but they cannot charge Bente with being un-Lutheran, anti-confessional, or teaching against the Holy Scriptures. More will be brought out from this podcast later. In the next Part 8 we hear from another podcast under the umbrella of Dr. Keith's organization. Refreshingly, we will also, later in Part 9, hear from a commanding testimony, from today's LC-MS, refuting the above charges against Bente's history.

      It may be noted that as Melanchthon interspersed Greek in his private letters to hide his most critical opinions, "The Thinking Fellows" and "Banned Books" podcasters put their most critical opinions against Bente in verbal podcasts, without transcripts, instead of in writings that search engines can discover and present as a truly public presentation.

Thank God for Bente's “bias”, his “partiality”

for the Lutheran Confessions 

and Holy Scripture!

[The full transcript of the podcast excerpt (~ 05:30 to 09:34), with my highlighting, notes and comments interspersed in red lettering, concerning Bente's history is available below in the "Read more" section:]