Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 25, 2023

M28: Impossible!; Walther over Drs. Kolb and Green

       This concludes from Part 27 (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 shows this essay was a difficult work of scholarship, that cost him "no small effort". The result? Walther presents his summation so that all who would know the answer to the question "Did Luther carry, or bear with, or "tolerate" Melanchthon errors?" — This concluding portion from LuW, 22, pp. 372-373 [EN]: 
 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 28 of 28  - - - - - - -
 

But let this be as it may, we ask finally: Can those who cultivate church fellowship with notorious false teachers, if they profess themselves in the main to the teaching of our church, rightly refer to the fact that Luther too carried a Melanchthon? — We answer: Impossible! It is true, if one goes a little deeper into the history of Melanchthon's behavior during the last ten years of Luther's life, such a bleak picture of Melanchthon presents itself to the eye that one must ask oneself with astonishment how it was possible that there was no decisive break between the two men. And we confess that it cost us no small effort, and that it was only our duty not to let our Luther be defiled without contradiction while still in his grave, and to prevent soul-destroying abuse of his name, that prompted us to collect and add one train after another to the drafting of that picture


How much would we have preferred to be able to help that only the memory of Melanchthon should be kept alive from the time of his faithfulness and blessed efficacy, but that the memory of him from the time of his softening and falling should be wiped out and buried forever! May those who, instead of seeking consolation for their syncretism in the Melanchthon who once faithfully stood by his teacher Luther, seek consolation in the Melanchthon who secretly machinates against Luther but publicly professes his faith in him and his teaching, take responsibility for forcing faithful disciples of Luther to draw to the light what they would so gladly see covered up. Luther “carried” Melanchthon with a love that turned everything for the best and hoped for everything, as it is rarely found among Christians. [But Walther had this same love, also Pieper!] But to say that Luther carried Melanchthon as a false teacher who had been revealed before him is contrary to all historical, actual truth and a cruel blasphemy of Luther, the faithful confessor of the pure truth and unbending fighter of any falsification of it until his death


  • Of a man like Melanchthon, who continuously did everything to make Luther believe that he agreed with him in doctrine, 

  • of a man whom, as often as his deviations became apparent to him, Luther seriously reproached,  

  • of a man who, as often as he was reproached, gave way, 

  • of a man who himself lamented, time and again at that time, that he must go forth next to Luther as if under a threatening thunderstorm gathering over his head (page 373), who always feared that he had betrayed himself, to be called to account by Luther and, when Luther polemicized from lectern and pulpit, to be the target,

  • finally, of a man who, even after Luther's death, told Carlowitz what an unbearable “almost shameful servitude” he had endured under Luther — 


to say of such a man, that Luther had carried him as a false teacher who had become obvious, to make him an example for us “from the fundamental time of the Reformation”, would be downright ridiculous, if it were not so sad.  But it is to be ascribed to Luther, the Reformer awakened and sealed by God, that he boldly condemned all others who harbored Melanchthon's errors as false prophets and therefore as ravening wolvesBut that he “carried” and overlooked these same errors in Melanchthon out of special friendship, from which God graciously preserves every Lutheran — to him who does such, God grant sincere repentance.                            W. [C. F. W. Walther]

- - - - - - - - -   End of Essay  - - - - - - - - - -
 
Dr. Robert Kolb
      How should I conclude this monumental essay by Walther?  I would point out that Dr. Robert Kolb essentially called for this study when he stated, in his (mostly critical) 2001 essay on Walther's history of the Formula of Concord, that when Walther noted Melanchthon's confusion of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel, he did it 
"without addressing the historical problem involved in Luther's toleration of such [confusing] expressions". 
Dr. Kolb appears, in this sidebar remark, to assume that Luther "tolerated", or carried, Melanchthon's errors, a position that Walther thoroughly refutes, as did also Prof. Bente. Luther did not tolerate or "carry" or "bear with" Melanchthon's errors.  He could not.  Bente said it well in 1908 (LuW 54, p. 68) that "Luther was not unionistic and indifferentistic in matters of doctrine even towards his best friends". Dr. Kolb needs to sit down and carefully read and digest Walther's essay. But even if he does not change his opinion, that does not mean readers, like me, should blindly follow modernism's so-called "much greater precision", for even Melanchthon said of Luther, when the Evangelicals were under "terrible pressure" from the Catholics,
"The misfortune of the change of doctrine would not threaten us 
if… (Luther) were still alive
but now that there is 
no longer anyone who has his reputation
now that no one warns as he did…"
                                   — Philip Melanchthon, 1548 (Kern und Stern, p. 21)

Melanchthon essentially admitted in this statement that Luther was the better, stronger theologian. He confirmed it in his funeral oration for Luther. —  Who were the greatest defenders of Philip Melanchthon? They aren't today's Philippists, who blindly whitewash his later errors, e.g. Drs. Lowell Green and Robert Kolb, or their followers in the LC-MS such as the "1517." organization leaders (Drs. Keith, Francisco and Rosenbladt), and pastors (Riley and Gillespie [Part 15]), they were the ones who warned against his errors: C. F. W. Walther, Prof. Friedrich Bente, Martin Chemnitz, and Prof. Franz Pieper, who stated (CD I, 30): “Melanchthon never really believed his synergistic theory.”

Luther carried a Melanchthon? — Impossible!

[Further readings on this subject: Walther's 1877 book Kern und Stern (Core and Star), now in English for free; Bente's essay "Did Luther subscribe to Melanchthon's synergism?" (LuW vols. 53, 54, #1, 2, 34, 5, 6, 7, vol. 55, full text Gdoc), Bente's essay "The Apology of the Formula of Concord" LuW 48 p. 171, 221; John Drickamer's essay "Did Melanchthon become a Synergist?", The Springfielder April 1975 p. 95 ff., text here and here; Walther's footnote to his "Foreword" to LuW 28 (1882), pp. 99-103]

Friday, July 21, 2023

M27: L.: great harm of silence; Pr Riley on Justification (UOJ) — a contradiction

       This continues from Part 26 (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 quotes Luther's well-known warning against Georg Major against "silence" in matters of faith.  Could he have meant this also for Melanchthon?  — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 371-372 [EN]:
 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 27 of 28  - - - - - - -

Finally, we share here a story that is incorporated into Luther's works from Kirchner's, Selnecker's and Martin Chemnitz's Gründlicher, wahrhaftiger Historie von der Augsburgischen Confession [view online; now available in English by James L. Langebartels here] (or “Historie des Sacramentsstreites”) from 1584. It reads as follows:

Georg Major

“Since [Georg] Major wanted to travel to Regensburg, he came to Dr. Luther to bless him, and in the entrance to his study room he found these words written in Dr. Luther's handwriting: 'Nostri Professores examinandi sunt de Coena Domini', i.e., ‘our professors are to be examined regarding the Lord's Supper.’ So he asked: ‘Venerable Father, what do these words mean?’ To which the great Doctor answered him: ‘What you read and what they say, that is the opinion; and when you return home and I too, an examination will have to be taken, for which you will be required just as much as others.’ But when Dr. Major wanted to rid himself of the suspicion with great reassurance and clear confession, he finally got his answer: ‘You make yourselves suspicious by your silence and cloaks; but if you believe as you speak before me, speak such things in the church, in lectionibus, concionibus, et privatis colloquiis, [in lectures, sermons, and private conversations], and strengthen your brothers and help those who are lost back on the right path, and contradict the wanton spirits; otherwise your confession is only a larval work and of no use. He who holds his teaching, faith, and confession to be true, right, and certain, cannot stand in a stable with others who hold such false teaching or are devoted to it, nor can he still give good words to the devil and his scales. A teacher who keeps silent on errors, and yet wants to be a real teacher, is worse than a public fanatic, and does greater harm with his hypocrisy than a heretic, and is not to be trusted; he is a wolf and a fox, a hireling and a belly servant. He may despise and hand over doctrine, word, faith, sacrament, churches, and schools; either he lies secretly in cahoots with his enemies, or he is a doubter and a weather vane, and wants to see where it will lead, whether Christ or the devil will prevail; or he is completely unsure of himself, and not worthy that he should be called a disciple, let him be called a teacher, and let him anger no one, nor speak Christ's Word, nor woe to the devil and the world’ etc. Dr. Major considered such things (LuW 372) and faithfully promised to follow them and thus blessed Luther, and has often himself recited and told such serious discourses which the great man of God gave him.” (Tom. Hal. XVII, 1476. f. [StL 17, 1179 f.]) 

Whether Luther wrote the words: “Nostri Professores examinandi sunt de Coena Domini,” also for Melanchthon's sake, above the entrance to his study, we do not want to decide; in any case, if Luther had returned alive to Wittenberg, he would not have dispensed with having to do such an examination

- - - - - - - - -   Concluded in Part 28  - - - - - - - - - -
In the concluding Part 28, the dear Dr. Walther summarizes the points he made, then puts an exclamation point to this whole matter. 
- - - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing pastors: Gillespie & Riley:   - - - - - - - - -
 
Pastors Christopher Gillespie and Donovan Riley
We last visited these "Banned Books" podcasting Pastors Christopher Gillespie and Donovan Riley in Part 8. As stated there "One of these pastors had a surprising discussion on the Doctrine of Justification that does not fit with the other points they made." So what was said in their podcast? Below is a transcript of a 2 minute clip covering this doctrine (with my interspersed comments in red; time marks in blue):

(Riley, 17:28): Now that means then this is a fine distinction, but important one, “Who does Jesus die to redeem from sin, death and Hell — everybody: (17:38) "Behold the Lamb of God who dies for the sin of the world" [John 1:29], the Cosmos, therefore everyone is saved in Jesus's blood, I should say "justified", I guess that's a better way of saying it, everyone is justified, everyone is forgiven in Jesus's death, and resurrection. (17:52) Now we call that "Objective Justification". [Very good!! Pr. Riley could have also used the term “Universal Justification” as this was just explicitly taught.] Subjective Justification then follows as a consequence of the preaching of the Gospel, the reception of Baptism, (18:04) Lord's Supper, and the forgiveness of sins [Absolution; also the reading of the Word of Grace]  [NB: Pr. Riley could have mentioned of how it is subjective, by faith, i.e. sola fide, Pieper CD II, 349; Subjective Justification is in distinction from the Objective Justification, what happens on the recipient side of the Means of Grace.] but for Lutherans this is all done publicly, it is all done through the work of the Holy Spirit [who also works also through the written of Word to create faith, “Be ye reconciled to God” 2 Cor. 5:20], [18:11] Third Article of Apostle's Creed Explanation in the Catechisms and thus when the question comes "How do I know if I'm a sheep or a goat?", we point to the cross and say “you are elected, you are chosen, God chose you in Christ.” (18:26) For Calvinsts, traditionally when you ask that question the answer is "Well we can't just know, but we can look for signs". So what happens is that for Lutherans, Election points us to Jesus and thus comfort and assurance; in Calvinism, it points us back to ourself, where there is no comfort or assurance. (Gillespie) (18:45): And that is the key distinction you know "How can I know and you've a few conversations, maybe they wouldn't consider themselves Calvinists, but they are part of a church that kind of adheres to the tradition. (Right) And they will even have problems with the word of forgiveness like I hear you say "I forgive you our sins" but how can I know that I'm really forgiven... because Jesus said it? (Huh!)

(19:08) (Riley) so if you want to find out more about this, it's in Calvin's Institutes Book 32, chapter 21, where he argues that preaching equals Predestination and Predestination equals evidence of Election, and so what happens is that you take the preaching and you internalize it and this is a sign of your conversion, your regeneration. (end of clip)
I was quite taken with the above portion of the podcast in which they, by implication, want to "ban" Bente's History.  What they discuss during these 2 minutes is largely what was taught in the Old Missouri Synod.  This begs the questions: 
  • Why would they condemn Bente when he is a vigorous defender of what these podcasting pastors teach — Objective Justification?  
  • Where did they get this teaching if not from Walther, Pieper, Stoeckhardt and… Bente?! Did they get it from Dr. Scott Keith, the sponsor of their podcast? (I don't think so.) Did they get it from Bo Giertz (Swedish) or Wilhelm Pauck (German) or from Jaroslav Pelikan's book From Luther to Kierkegaard — their promoted historians for Lutheran history?  Although I have not been a student of the first 2 European theologians, I am aware that Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, who eventually left Lutheranism, did not teach Objective Justification, at least not properly. (Since this doctrine is largely missing in Europe, I suspect the 2 European theologians actually fought against this doctrine of Objective, Universal Justification.)
  • How can your history sources give true Lutheran history if they are known for "Pietism" and "Neo-Lutheranism", being "closer to Harnack than to Luther", etc.? Indeed, how can they teach "Objective Justification" purely with these designations?
  • How can your teaching of Objective Justification avoid your own charge (Part 15) of being "filtered through that particular time and that particular debate and that particular context" as the Old Missouri Synod faced from their opponents? (Only the Synodical Conference upheld this doctrine in the whole world…)
  • If you cannot reconcile your express teaching with your promoted theologians, why would you call into question your own teaching, presented in this very same podcast, by this contradiction?
Dear reader, why not just listen to these podcasters on their teaching of "Objective Justification", and forget their recommendations for Lutheran history, and rather read the history that unequivocally promotes and defends Objective Justification — Prof. F. Bente's masterful Historical Introductions?

Monday, July 17, 2023

M26: L. to M.: “do away with some points”; Walther's Kern und Stern (another BTL book)

[2023-07-19: added note in red below]
       This continues from Part 25 (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.” — Melanchthon had appeased Luther with his apology.  Did his private letters show the change from his former habit of deriding Luther privately in correspondence with others? — Then a head-turning report by Ratzenberger of a near death request by Luther to Melanchthon. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 369-371 [EN]:
 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 26 of 28  - - - - - - -

Even with Amsdorf, whom he previously considered Luther's stimulus, Melanchthon now seems to have been reconciled. At least he writes the following in the same year [1545] mentioned on July 24, among other assurances of his love and veneration for him: 

“Although I very much desired to accompany Dr. Luther on his journey to you, for there is nothing (LuW 370) I like to see more than when we talk together most sincerely about the most important things, I nevertheless prefer not to leave here without your permission.” (p. 798

When Luther traveled to Mansfeld in October of the same year [1545] for his rest and in December to settle a dispute, he forced Melanchthon to accompany him. (p. 864, 910) On November 11, Melanchthon reports to Medler: 

“Dr. Martin read yesterday the story (written by you) at the evening meal, to which he had invited our pastor (Bugenhagen), Cruciger, G. Major and myself; how he is in the habit of inviting his friends to his house on that day. Because Luther was born on the day before Martini and is now entering his 62nd year (?).” (p. 887

On January 20, 1546, he reports once again that he had been invited by Luther to supper and had therefore declined another invitation.” (C. R. VI, 17) On February 8, he dubbed Luther “his most dear father and restorer of the pure doctrine of the gospel.” (p. 33) When the ailing Melanchthon was to be sent back to Regensburg in January 1546 for the Colloquium, Luther was displeased and wrote about this to the Elector under January 9: 

“What would you do if Master Philip were dead or sick, when he is truly sick, that I am glad that I brought him home from Mansfeld. … He likes to drink, if one wants it, and risks his life; but who will advise or bid him so in such danger, in which one wants to try God, and in the end stifles us ourselves with a vain repentance. The young Doctors must also go up and speak after us.” (de Wette. V, 775 [StL 21, 3178]) 

Brück, who had talked to Luther about this, reported the same to the Elector: 

“The Doctor never wanted to advise that Philip should be sacrificed to the journey and vain needless toil. … Thus would Philip be a faithful man who neither shuns nor avoids anyone, but he would be weak and sick; it would have cost him no small effort to bring him back home alive, for he would not have wanted to eat or drink” etc. (C. R. VI, 10

Still from Eisleben, therefore, Luther writes to Melanchthon in the warmest and most friendly manner. He begins his third-last letter, dated February 1, 1546, with the words: "Grace and peace in the Lord! I also thank you, my Philip, that you pray for me, and I ask you to pray for me.” (de Wette. V, 782 [StL 21, 3190-3191]) In his penultimate letter of February 6, he greets him as “the faithful servant of God, his most precious brother” (p. 785 [StL 21, 3192]) and in the last letter of February 14, as his “most worthy brother in Christ.” (p. 974 [sic: p. 791; StL 21, 3202]) 

do away with some points in his [Melanchthon's] Locis

Most strange, by the way, is a note by Ratzenberger, to which Seckendorf (L. III, f. 693) also refers: 

“One wants to speak for a constant truth and to assert that, because Dr. Luther noted his weakness and worried that he would have trouble with his life, he had before his end, to a good friend called Master Johannes Rothe who had been around him at Eisleben and (LuW 371) later became pastor at St. Nicholas, ordered that, as soon as he [Rothe] would come to Wittenberg after his [Luther’s] death, (he) [Rothe] would seriously admonish Philip that, due to the most recent conversation which he, Luther, had held with him, he wanted to do away with some points in his Locis communibus, which Luther had fought against and had referred to Philip, and leave them out.” (Ratzenberger's Handwritten History of Luther, etc., edited by Neudecker. Jena, 1850. p. 139.). 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 27  - - - - - - - - - -
Walther calls Ratzenberger's note "most strange", signifying that he is aware that this may be the only report of this extraordinary request by Luther.  He is also aware that Luther's request fits the situation of "some points" of Melanchthon's questionable theology, and that it corroborates Walther's thesis. — In the next Part 27
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Walther's Kern und Stern
The Formula of Concord, Core and Star
 
      In 1877, the Old Missouri Synod published a small book from the pen of C. F. W. Walther: Der Concordienformel Kern und Stern. This book was quoted 17 times in Prof. F. Bente's Historical Introductions, signifying the esteem this book had within the Old Missouri Synod.  That was the main reason for me to spend many weeks getting it translated, polished, and extensively hyperlinked.  Why would I do this since it has already been translated in 2012 by Rev. Kenneth Howes and published by Lutheran News, Inc.?  I did not do it because this work of Rev. Howe was inadequate.  How happy I was when I purchased Howe's translation 10 years ago, and delighted in Walther's history and defense of true Lutheranism.  But it seemed now that this book is so important that it should be made freely available to all and made easy to search, navigate and research on one's own. My translation, a modified DeepL translation, may be viewed below
or it may be downloaded as a DOCX file HERE, or a PDF file HERE.
What advantages will this new electronic publication offer the reader over the previous translation? It
  • includes the emphasis of words made in the original German text
  • includes missed sections by Howe — these are highlighted in light blue (they are not extensive)
  • added a Table of Contents, with hyperlinks
  • has a translated extensive Index, with all entries hyperlinked to their respective place in the body.
Now this book cannot only be read by all, it can be linked to by page or even text phrases. It has also, in Part II, an excellent summary of the individual articles in the Formula and the subbject of their defense.  A good way to study this book, after first reading Part I, is to browse the Index and find topics of interest. (This book is so good, the reader should consider purchasing a copy of Rev. Howe's translation for only $7.95.) [2023-07-19: See also my 3-part series presenting Pieper's companion book on the Augsburg Confession here.]
      A second reason I undertook this project was to offer a better alternative to the syncretistic, Phillipist history of Dr. Robert Kolb, who in a 2001 essay, ostensibly to honor Walther, was critical of his history! See Part 24, Kolb's essay here. We see clearly that by this time, in 2001, Kolb's intent was to replace Bente and Walther with his own history.