RH13: Appendix: exegesis, Revelation, confessionalism

      This continues from Part 12 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — This segment does not contain Hochstetter's critique because he did not cover these points. That could be because he spent so much space on the doctrine of the Church and Church Government.  Or it could be because he was not given enough space to fully address all the points made by Hoffmann. Whatever the reason, the following criticisms were leveled against the Missourians, and therefore call for a response. One will find these covered in Hoffmann pp. 27-29. What follows are quotes from Pastor Hoffmann, then my critique.

Exegesis and Holy Scripture:

Hoffmann: “Missourian theology is merely backward theology and as such is already insufficient; but there are many other things. The Missourians did almost nothing in the way of independent biblical research; it is extremely rare to find an exegetical work. … For the rest, the Missourians regard Holy Scripture only as a collection of dicta probantia [proof texts] for dogmatics; it is clear that the divine word is not given its due.”

The first charge, the lack of exegesis, is false for the Old Missouri Synod had an exegete of the first order in Prof. George Stoeckhardt. Also see below of Pastor Röbbelen on the Book of Revelation.

Prof. J. P. Koehler

This kind of charge had also come from one much closer to home, most notably from Prof. J. P. Koehler of the Wisconsin Synod. See his History of the Wisconsin Synod, p. 236 where he uses "exegesis" to attempt to show that "a synod is 'church'" in the same sense as the local congregation, which is mirrored exactly by the explicit teaching of Pres. Matthew Harrison of the LC-MS (see Part 8). — The second charge of "the divine word is not given its due" comes from an opponent of Verbal Inspiration, as practically all teachers of the German United Church were opponents. Many others have made these same charges against Walther and Pieper. The charge claims to be as a champion of Holy Scripture when it intends to strip it of its dogmatic nature. It originates from an aversion to dogmatics. 

Book of Revelation:

Hoffmann: “It sounds more than naive when a Pastor Röbbelen, who published an interpretation of the Apocalypse [Revelation] in Der Lutheraner, declared that he could not consider this book canonical because Luther did not consider it canonical either, and the enlightened man understood more about it than he [Luther] did. (Köstering p. 180 ff. [CHI/CPH 2022 p. 144])”

One may read the background of this from Missouri Synod Pastor Röbbelen himself in Der Lutheraner, volume 12 (April 22, 1856), p. 139 f.. While Hoffmann complimented Röbbelen, he wants to promote doctrinal freedom, particularly away from Martin Luther, with this comment. It represents a cavalier attitude towards the Reformer of the Church. (More will be forthcoming on this matter, watch for it soon.) — Hochstetter addresses the Book of Revelation in his History (search "Revelation" there).

quatenus Subscription and Confessionalism:

Hoffmann: “But what is taken away from it [Scripture] is given too much to the symbolic books, and thus what should at first be a testimony of doctrine becomes an essential source of doctrine. Here lies, however much their willing submission is to be acknowledged, the fundamental error of the Missourians. The <page 28> symbolic books in honor — would to God they were better known and more diligently studied among us — they are also a norm for us, and in accepting them we need not hide behind the reserve: quatenus verbo dei consentiunt, [in so far as they agree with the Word of God] but since they are also the work of men, we must also distinguish between the essential and the non-essential in them and must not forget that they can be norm and foundation, but not already the goal and end of theological knowledge. Missouri, however, turns the confessions, whose literal, unreserved acceptance she demands, into a code of law, into a paper pope, and so, against her will, her exaggerated Lutheranism turns into Romanism, whose bitterest opponents they otherwise are.”

Pastor Hoffmann admits that his Church, the Union Church, does not subscribe fully to the Lutheran Confessions — he holds to a "quia" subscription, a conditional one. That is the same as admitting that one is not actually Lutheran. Then he confirms this, saying that the "too much" that is given to the symbols was taken away from Scripture. Then he attempts to whitewash all of this by saying that the Confessions "are also a norm for us". All of this exposes just how un-Lutheran he is as he then calls the Confessions a "code of laws", "a paper pope". How much more un-Lutheran can one be? All of this was going on well before the devasting World Wars of the next century.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  Conclusion in Part 14  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      Hoffmann was not the only German churchman to use Pastor Röbbelen's exposition of Revelation and its canonicity against the Old Missouri Synod. More will be said in a later blog series by C. F. W. Walther (GB4). — In the next Part 14, we conclude this series with Hoffmann's errors on the Antichrist and other doctrines.