M17: L.'s mildness; Thinking Fellows vs McCain's confessionalism

       This continues from Part 16, or Excursus 3, (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 continues Chancellor Brück's report to Elector John Frederick in 1537 on the explosive matter of Melanchthon's error on the teaching of the Lord's Supper. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 357-359 [EN]: 

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 17 of 28  - - - - - - -

“From this I understood that Philip had hidden the letter of his Electoral Grace to Dr. Jakob (Schenk) from him.  In addition, he also showed that he probably had all kinds of precautions, and could not know how Philip’s situation was in the Sacrament. For he did not call it anything else, would have considered it a bad ceremony, would not have seen him for a long time and would not have recommended the Holy Communion. He would also have brought arguments, after the time when he went to Cassel, from which he heard how he was almost of a Zwinglian opinion. But, as it was in his heart, he did not yet know.” 

(So even after Melanchthon had put forward his Zwinglian "arguments" and thereby betrayed himself, he must have quickly withdrawn from Luther). 

“But the secret letters and counsels, ‘that among the tyrants one may receive the sacrament in one form’, gave him strange (LuW 358) thoughts. But he [Luther] wanted to share his heart with Philip, and wanted very much that Philip, being a high man, would not want to distance himself from them and from the school, for he would do great work. But if he [Melanchthon] would insist on the opinion, as he notes from the letter of Dr. Jacob, the truth of God would have to come first. He wanted to pray for him. [Luther for Melanchton] For if for the sake of the tyrants’ prohibition [of both forms in Communion] and for the preservation of peace one form should be taken, one would have to obey their commandment, and for the same reason one would have to teach that works were for justification. *) 

—————— 

*) In doing so, Luther again aroused the suspicion, which he had already abandoned, that the expression used by Melanchthon, that good works are the causa sine qua non [a cause without which it is not] of justification, had its basis in syncretistic sympathies.

It would, he said, in short, no longer be weakness [i.e. but aposticizing]; and in addition he introduced many good things to me, to prevent me from writing too long about them. I [Brück] told him what His Electoral Grace of Philip’s considered opinion to be, and what I thought, as of His Electoral Grace I would have noted next to Lochau, that he pressed until he saw his time and comfort, and especially if he [John Frederick] would experience the Doctor's death. … Dr. Martin said that if he did so, he would become a miserable man and would have no peace for the sake of his conscience.” (Corp. Ref. III, 427. f.) 

At what time Brück's conversation with Luther, which the Elector expressly wanted to keep secret (p. 365), took place is not indicated in the relevant documents in the Weimar Archives. 

Under August 4, however, [Casper] Cruciger writes to Veit Dietrich, after he has thought of the Schenk affair with bitter words: 

“The Doctor (Luther) has written that he has heard that an extremely poisonous plague is arising in this school … and speaks of Erasmian mediators, with which he is no doubt aiming at me, above all at Philip.” (p. 397) 

Melanchthon himself, however, also writes to Dietrich under September 18 in regard to the same matter: 

“Now we are called to answer for ourselves, I and Jonas. For he (Schenk) had also asked Jonas for advice. But the former was more cautious, and gave no answer in the matter; but he will be called before the court; as I believe, so that the opportunity to drive me into a corner (me urgendi) may have a greater appearance. .. I will leave with the greatest equanimity when they will banish me (ϊξοστραχίσουσι). ... I hope that Luther with his authority will step into the middle.” (p. 410 f.) 

In this hope Melanchthon was not mistaken either. But why? He really had the awareness at the time that even though he could not appropriate, indeed, could not approve of Luther's polemical style, yet agreed with him in his teaching, he preferred only a milder τρόπος παιδείας. He therefore immediately made an excellent detailed confession concerning his doctrine of justification (LuW 359) (p. 430 ff.), to show that, as he himself writes in his October 13 letter, he has no intention whatsoever of becoming the author of a new sect or of fighting Luther behind his back. *) 

—————— 

*) See above, p. 328 [Part 6: “Today I have collected…”], the relevant passage from Melanchthon's letter to Dietrich.

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 18  - - - - - - - - - -

How will Luther handle this situation? How will Melanchthon handle this matter? We have no better reporter than C. F. W. Walther to sort through all the writings and correspondence to glean everything that can be determined about whether Luther "carried" Melanchthon's errors or not. — In the next Part 18, Luther's response.

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

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

      We have previously reported on a portion of "The Thinking Fellows" podcast from the above members in Part 7.  Subsequent to that was a 55 second narrative that was particularly provocative—from 08:54 to 09:44.  To present it, I am placing it in juxtaposition with the opposing judgment of CPH Publisher Paul McCain on the same subject in his 2005 "Preface to the Reprinting" of Bente's history: 

Scott Keith, Adam Francisco, Rod Rosenbladt, Caleb Keith May 19, 2017 podcast		Paul McCain
on Bente's Historical Introductions.		on Bente's Historical Introductions.
CALEB or ADAM (08:54): From a historian's vantage point, um, Bente is a classic example of what we call confessional historiography. Right.		Bente's … 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.
[Bente is] filtering history through the lens of a particular confession. [Is CALEB or ADAM really saying this?] Right. That's, I mean,		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.
[GARBLED TALKING OVER EACH OTHER TO 09:09] CALEB? ROD? ADAM? (09:10): Right.
CALEB/ADAM (09:10): but, and, and really, Korey Maas wrote an article on the rise of modern historiography, and he pits it back not to the Renaissance historians, but to the, the confessional historians who had to get it right. Otherwise they'd be exposed as being fraudulent. Um, but Bente is not a good example of that. SCOTT? ROD?: Yeah. CALEB: Um, yeah. ROD?: <dismissive emphasis>  Enough!, [as if to dump Bente in the trash] Yeah.		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.
SCOTT (09:34): That was good. <laugh> Glad you brought it up. Actually. I was gonna <laugh> hmmm-hmmm, hey hey [gonna what?]. Yeah. [drops the subject]		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.’”

"The Thinking Fellows" contradict themselves in the above exchange by first criticizing Bente's history as “confessional historiography”, i.e. as "biased" history, then praising the early "confessional historians who had to get it right." Our "Fellows" want it both ways: first criticizing "biased" Confessionalism [ref. Part 7], then praising "Confessional historians"! They attempt to recover from this by adding that "Bente is not a good example of that", but the damage is done… for them!  They even draw on Dr. Korey Maas's writing which apparently praised "confessional historians".  Very good!  But isn't that praising "biased" history? What do you think, dear reader?

==> To: "The Thinking Fellows"

        From: BackToLuther

I guess I'm supposed to be sorry for subscribing to the Lutheran Confessions! I thought the Confessions would explain the historical truth behind the doctrinal conflicts, but evidently I need to keep an “open, unbiased mind”… according to you.  But I think I will return host Caleb Keith's charge against Bente (@ 07:11): "Nonsense!" 

"Enough!" of "The Thinking Fellows" podcast. Paul McCain's praise is the true judgment of Bente's history.