RH14: Antichrist, Usury, Orthodoxy, Predestination, Regeneration, Sunday/Sabbath

      This concludes from Part 13 (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 completes a listing of the criticisms from Germany, starting with the major one on the Antichrist, against the Missourians by Pastor Rudolf Hoffmann. These are covered in Hoffmann pp. 28-29. What follows are quotes from Hoffmann, then my in-line critiques. The final grouping is under the umbrella of the theologians of "Lutheran Orthodoxy": 

Antichrist:

Hoffmann: “Just listen to this one thing: Because in the Smalcald Articles (Concordia ed. Müller 308, 10 [Trigl. 475, 10; web]) the pope is called the Antichrist, therefore he must not be a part of it, as the Apology says (papatus erit pars regni antichristi, Concordia 209, 18 [Trigl. 318, 18, web]), but the Antichrist; indeed, this is so much a main doctrine with them that Walther goes so far as to assert: as the Jews sinned by not recognizing Jesus as the Christ, so Christians sin if they do not recognize the Pope as the Antichrist (Lehre und Wehre 1880, p. 26), and further: Whoever does not consider the pope to be the Antichrist, we cannot consider him a Christian, let alone a Lutheran. (Lehre und Wehre 1869, p. 269)”

Hoffmann's reference to an essay in Lehre und Wehre is not correct, for it does not address the subject of the Papacy. And the charge is not correct either, for in the same volume, Lehre und Wehre 1869, p. 125, Walther says that these Christians have only “gone astray”. Walther did not say “we cannot consider him a Christian”, but he only taught that they were erring, i.e. going astray, from the Smalcald Articles.

Usury:  

Hoffmann: “It has become a new Missourian confession by Synod decision that any taking of interest is usury and therefore sin (Synod Report of 1869), incidentally one of the weakest arguments that can be read, where only with difficulty the relevant scriptural passages and Luther are forced into the Missourian view.” [See Hochstetter's writing on this in his later History here.]

Lutheran Orthodoxy:

Hoffmann: “Every error carries its judgment within itself. Where will these paths lead? That even the symbols will no longer suffice [!], and that even the best Lutheran dogmatists must ultimately become false teachers [!]. The direction has already been taken. ” [Hoffmann does not accept that all Holy Scripture is given by inspiration of God and presents divine doctrine, even where the Confessions may be silent. Then he falsely generalizes and attempts to say the the Missourians labeled the teachers from the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy as "false teachers".]

Predestination:

Hoffmann: “Johann Gerhard et al. are criticized for having sought to mediate between the general divine will of grace and the special individual election <page 29> in the fides praevisa or in the intuitius fidei, and for not simply agreeing to the harsh doctrine of predestination laid down by Luther in his de servo arbitrio [Bondage of the Will]” [Walther pointed out an error of John Gerhard on Predestination, but hardly called him a "false teacher" on this account. See Hochstetter, History p. 364 etc.]

Regeneration: 

Hoffmann: “Chemnitz himself no longer exists before Missouri's eyes, because he taught that regeneration is not a repeated one (in repentance and conversion), but a unique one in baptism (cf. Chemnitz exam. concil. trid. p. 273) [No reference is given to Missouri writings to judge by — his judgment may be similar to the above false one of Walther and the Antichrist.]” 

Sunday / Sabbath: 

Hoffmann: “Other dogmatists [?] become direct false teachers … in the doctrine of Sunday they do not rest exclusively on the 28th Art. of the Augustana [AC 28, 53], but have also emphasized the other ropes, according to which a commandment of God valid for all times [the Sabbath] is also the core here” [Augsburg Confession: "What, then, are we to think of the Sunday … not that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services." Hoffmann is not a confessional Lutheran. See Hochstetter's writing on this in his History here.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  End of series  - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      Pastor Hochstetter did indeed respond to these omitted doctrines a few years later in his History. And his writings are to be preferred to mine above. But I could not leave them without a response here.  They show that the errors of the Iowa and Ohio Synods mirror the errors emanating from the main German church, the Union, or United, Church. — Pastor Hoffmann's final judgment on the Old Missouri Synod?… Yes? or No?:

No!

May Hochstetter's instructive defense aid others as it has for me.  In Jesus name! Amen!