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.]