Part 4: The Counter-Reformation within the Lutheran Church: Melanchthon's error

      This concludes from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a short series publishing Franz Pieper's last convention essay in 1930 on the 3 Counter-Reformations. — In this segment Pieper speaks of Lutherans, old and new, who have deviated from Lutheran doctrine. And in the process, we get a clear explanation of the doctrinal weakness of Philip Melanchthon in his later years. — From the 1930 Eastern District, pp. 43-47: 

I. The Counter-Reformation within the Lutheran Church.

Notable Quotations:

p. 39: "And now the sad event that even during Luther's lifetime a man arose within the Lutheran Church itself and at the University of Wittenberg who challenged the Gospel of grace, and that this man was Philip Melanchthon"

39: "Melanchthon wanted to be wise beyond the Holy Scriptures. He wanted to know more about things that affect people's salvation than God has revealed to us humans in His Word."

39: "In order to explain to human reason why not all people are saved… Melanchthon came up with the fantastic idea … that man could and must make a contribution to the development of faith in the Gospel"

39: "Melanchthon had truly forgotten what Scripture so clearly teaches… every human being is dead in sins"

40: "Luther had a very serious conversation with Melanchthon, and Melanchthon gave in."

40: "Melanchthon attributed to man the ability to turn to grace before his conversion"

41: "Another example of exaltation over others is the Jews. They did not want to sit on the same bench of sin with the Gentiles and thus excluded themselves from the kingdom of God for time and eternity, Matt. 8:10-12"

41: "…very soon afterwards, so-called “scientific” theology broke out, especially in Germany."

42: "The fathers of the Missouri Synod…were led by God's grace from Germany to America"

43: "Luther also teaches the inspiration of Holy Scripture."

44: "…German university professors no longer consider the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God."

44: "If a denier of Christ's inspiration …wants to console himself with John 3:16 … the devil may well whisper to him: How can you rely on John 3:16"

44: "the extremely sad fact that modern Lutheran theologians mostly also deny the vicarious satisfaction"

45: "substitutionary satisfaction is the direct teaching of Holy Scripture."

45: "Luther teaches that all those who do not believe in the vicarious satisfaction of Christ are outside the Christian Church"

45: "Unitarianism, however, is the dominant religion in our famous universities." [i.e. Harvard]

46: "Even within the American Lutheran Church, the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ has been directly denied in individual cases."

46: Synergism: "the idea that God has not completely reconciled the world to himself through Christ's substitutionary satisfaction."

46: “ecumenical Lutheranism” [or so-called “catholicity”]: "Some understand it to mean a further development of Lutheran teaching". [e.g. Loehe]

47: "As far as doctrine is concerned, there are no Old Lutherans and New Lutherans. … its “ecumenical” character, which remains the same for all times and places, includes unity in Christian doctrine."

The following gives access to the full essay in English translation:

A download of the DOCX file is provided >>  HERE  << which has been added to the original "Convention Essays" blog listing.

      Pieper's clear condemnation of Melanchthon's later error shows that Prof. Bente, in his Historical Introduction to the Symbolical Books, followed not only Walther, but also Franz Pieper. Pres. Matthew Harrison recently claimed that Pieper is "our greatest LCMS theologian who is still studied at our seminaries today". So why does the LC–MS oppose Pieper on the history and the doctrine of Melanchthon's later error? Is it not true that today's LC–MS has actually joined the "Counter-Reformation within the Lutheran Church"?

Part 3: The Reformed Counter-Reformation; inner testimony of the Holy Spirit (TSSI)

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a short series publishing Franz Pieper's last convention essay in 1930 on the 3 Counter-Reformations. — In this segment, Pieper uses the most amount of ink to detail the clear departure of the Reformed Church from the Reformation, Luther's Reformation — From the 1930 Eastern District, pp. 28-38:

I. The Reformed Counter-Reformation.

Notable Quotations:

p. 28: "the so-called Reformed Church reformation very soon developed as a Counter-Reformation"

28: "the Reformed Church, in the doctrines in which it differs from the Lutheran Church, places blind human reason on the throne of rulers"

29: "But what the Reformed Church denies is the clear teaching of Holy Scripture. Luke 24:46-47… Scripture also teaches that Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Acts 2:38… that Holy Communion is administered for the forgiveness of sins. Matt. 26:27-2"

30: "Zwingli submitted his own confession of faith (Fidei Ratio), in which he said that the Holy Spirit does not need a vehicle (vehiculum). Calvin repeated this wonderful teaching"

30: "…the terrible consequence if we humans set aside the means of grace ordained by God? We thereby also abandon the Christian doctrine of justification"

30-31: "The “inner” testimony of the Holy Spirit (testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti) is nothing apart from and alongside faith in the Gospel wrought by the Holy Spirit, 1 John 5:9-10"

31: "Now since the Reformed Church,… denies the means of grace and maintains that God communicates the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit without means, it thereby characterizes itself as a Counter-Reformation."

31: "… how Christian faith is possible in the Reformed sects that reject the external means of grace.…there is also a “happy inconsistency” at this point."

32: "Then, as a more recent Reformed theologian (Schneckenburger) points out, temptation and mortal distress also drove the Reformed to the Lutheran point of view, namely to base their faith on the external Word of the Gospel." [i.e. on a means of grace]

32: "Calvinist Reformed Church is also rationalistic in its doctrine of eternal election. It claims that anyone who teaches eternal election to faith and salvation must necessarily also teach eternal election to unbelief and damnation."

32-33: "The Reformed Church is also rationalistic in its doctrine of Holy Communion. What it teaches about the Lord's Supper contradicts the Holy Scriptures and is based merely on human ideas."

33: "The Reformed doctrine is excluded by the fact that the body of Christ, which is presented in the Lord's Supper to be eaten with the mouth, is not described as an image of the body, but as the true body by the addition 'which is given for you'."

34: "Christ's words with which he institutes Holy Communion are not unusual and obscure as far as the manner of speaking is concerned, but quite common and completely clear."

35: "the Reformed theologians contradict each other in their understanding of the words of the Lord's Supper."

36: "The Reformed Church also proved to be a counter-reformation by trying to oust the Lutheran Church from areas where the Lutheran Church had already gained a foothold.… one of the causes that halted the triumphant course of the Reformation and brought it to a partial standstill."

37: "the Reformed were always prepared to unite without agreement on doctrine" [= Unionism]

37: "the fact that they did not think highly of their cause was because they were not sure of their doctrine."

38: "all sins are forgiven through the Word of the Gospel, all sins are forgiven through baptism, and all sins are forgiven through Holy Communion"

38: "the conclusion that Reformed theologians allow themselves to draw, that therefore the Lord's Supper (which Christ warmly demanded to be instituted) is unnecessary, is blasphemous."

38: "they overlook the special consolation that Christ wants to give his Christians by instituting Holy Communion."

38: Luther: "I give it [Communion] to the one who takes it in particular, giving him Christ's body and blood, that he may have forgiveness of sins, acquired through his death and preached in the congregation. This is something more than the common (general) sermon"

    It may be noted that Prof. David Scaer (Pro Ecclesia 14 [2005] p. 149 ff.) and Rev. Dr. Martin Noland (see here) of the LC–MS explicitly deny Pieper's teaching above on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit (p. 30-31), saying that the orthodox Lutheran teachers received such teaching from the Calvinists.  But Scaer and Noland should study the Book of Concord here, and Pieper's reference to 1 John 5:9-10. Then they should study Pieper's essay, pages 29-31, to see that Pieper was here defending Lutheran doctrine against the Calvinists!

      In the concluding Part 4, "The Counter-Reformation within the Lutheran Church."

Part 2: The Roman Counter-Reformation (Pieper 1930 Eastern District); "For Rent"

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a short series publishing Franz Pieper's last convention essay in 1930 on the 3 Counter-Reformations. — In this segment, Pieper demonstrates the clear reasons why the Reformation had to happen – for the sake of the Gospel. Pieper begins with his most striking statement about the Vatican. From the 1930 Eastern District, pp. 21-28: 

I. The Roman Counter-Reformation.

Notable Quotations:

p. 21: "Suppose the doctrine of the Gospel were to come to general acceptance in the Church, the Pope could very soon place on the splendid buildings of the Vatican the advertisement, 'For Rent,' 'For Rent,' because of giving up the business."

22: "Both the ban imposed on Luther by the Pope… [and] by Emperor Charles … served to banish the Gospel from the Church and the world."

23: "Albrecht Dürer in Nuremberg, one of those whose heart God had already opened to the Gospel, wrote in his diary: “Is Luther still alive, or have they murdered him?"

23: "At Worms …[in 1521] Luther stood alone before the emperor and the empire with his confession of Scripture"

23: "At Augsburg in 1530, seven Lutheran princes and two imperial cities stood behind the Augsburg Confession , which was a complete presentation of Luther's teachings based on Scripture."

24: "I, Doctor Martin Luther, evangelist unworthy of our Lord Jesus Christ, say that this article ‘Faith alone, without all works, makes righteous before God’"

24: "Rome demanded most resolutely that the forgiveness of sins or justification should also be based on the works of the Law. Everything that Rome has previously taught and done against the Gospel is 'codified and satanized', as it has been expressed, in the decisions of the Council of Trent"

25: "The doctrine that man is justified before God solely through faith in God's grace in Christ is also cursed"

25: On Rome: "the Church is so gracious that she throws the person who has fallen overboard a plank on which he can swim to eternal life under the direction of the Church. This vehicle for those who have fallen from baptismal grace is the penance prescribed by the Roman Church."

26: Luther: "for the ship (of baptism) is not broken, because, as I said, it is God's order and not ours."

26: Christians under the Papacy: "…there are souls in the pope's outer realm who, against the prohibition of the official church and without asking permission from the pope, cling to the gospel of the gracious forgiveness of sins solely for the sake of Christ's perfect merit"

26: "in the papal church there is still the text of the Gospels and Epistles, the same text that the Lutheran Church has taken over."

27: "a new order that provided the Pope with “front-line soldiers” or “shock troops” to fight the Gospel. This was the Jesuit Order"

27: "the [Jesuit] order, organized in the finest way, ruthlessly walks in the old paths of the old papal enmity against the Gospel."

27: "In our time, too, the Jesuit order provides the 'front-line soldiers' for the fight against the Gospel.… We in St. Louis have Jesuits in close proximity. [St. Louis University]"

28: Chemnitz: “I am often horrified that Luther … often repeated the word: ‘After my death this doctrine will again be brought into obscurity.’”

      In Part 3, "The Reformed Counter-Reformation."

Luther on lethal force self-defense (vs. Biermann, LC-MS)

     There is some controversy in the LC–MS caused by an essay entitled “Lawful Lethal Force” authored by Prof. Joel Biermann, Professor of Systematic Theology, Concordia Seminary, as reported here. This is one of several "Contemporary Applications" essays included in the new, controversial, LC–MS version of Luther's Large Catechism that claims to update Luther's work. In this essay Biermann states that

“…a legitimate place for the use of the sword within God’s plan for His creation is not a license for any Christian to use the sword for any reason unilaterally deemed legitimate and necessary.… Lethal force, Luther consistently taught, is rightly used only by the one placed into the Amt [office] of authority in the state. It is never exercised for the sake of self, but always and only for the sake of the neighbor.”

The claim by Prof. Biermann that "Luther consistently taught" against lethal force self-defense was documented to be false by a responder [WB]. — 

      The purpose of this blog post is to expand on the "response" by publishing the actual words of Luther from a 1539 Disputation. The Weimar Edition carried the original Latin text, the German Missourians translated it into their native German. I was unable to find that the American Edition, Old or New Series, published this Disputation. So I am presenting a translation of both the Latin and German so that readers may judge Luther's actual teaching:

Google Translation from the Latin (WA 39II, 40-41; Luther's Theses 31–35:

31. Now if a robber or a thief wants to force you or steal because you are a Christian, here you must resist the evil, if you want to be a pious citizen of this world.

32. Because, just as he himself resists the magistrates, of which you are a member, so he orders you to resist by virtue of the second table, to which you are bound to obey.

33. Thus, if a robber on the road wants to kill you for Christ's sake, you must defend yourself, even if he is to be killed.

34. Because you know that the magistrate has commanded that robbers are to be resisted and that his citizens are to be defended, you therefore obey both the first and the second tables.

35. And there is no need to worry if he claims Christ, that is, as the first plan, when it is certain that he seeks to kill you, not for Christ's sake, but for your cause.

DeepL translation from the German of the St. Louis Edition, 10, 580 [DE]:

31. Now if a thief or robber wanted to do violence to you or steal from you because you are a Christian, you must resist the evil here, otherwise you are not a pious citizen of this world. 

32. For just as the temporal authorities, whose member and subject you are, resist you in such a case, so they also command you, who are bound to obey, by virtue of the second tablet to resist. 

33. Therefore, if a murderer attacks you in the street and wants to kill you because you are a Christian, you must resist him even if it costs him his life. 

34. For you know that the authorities have commanded that you defend their citizens and resist a murderer; in such a case you obey the demands of both the first and second tablets. 

35. Nor is it necessary to turn away from this if he wants to refer to Christ, that is, to the first tablet, in his violence; for it is obvious that he does not want to do violence to you for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of your possessions and goods.

Just so the comparison is crystal clear, here are the two contrasting statements:

Prof. Joel Biermann	Martin Luther
“Lethal force, Luther consistently taught,… is never exercised for the sake of self”	“Therefore, if a murderer attacks you in the street and wants to kill you because you are a Christian, you must defend yourself, even if he is to be killed.”

Prof. Biermann's claim about Luther's teaching is fiction. But this offense against Luther and Christian teaching pales in comparison to Biermann's classroom teaching which has been documented in videos of his lectures. I may present that story in a future blog.

CM10: Schurb vs Harrison (on Lieberg vs Walther)

    This concludes from Part CM9b (Table of Contents in Part CM1) in a series defending Walther against a false portrayal by LC-MS President Matthew Harrison on the doctrines of Church and Ministry. — 

      I briefly mentioned a serious disagreement between the respected Dr. Ken Schurb and Pres. Matthew Harrison in Part CM1b, but there is much more to tell on this.  Dr. Schurb was Assistant to President A. L. Barry from 1994 to 2001. In his recent book review of Hellmut Lieberg's Office and Ordination in Luther and Melanchthon, (CPH 2020) in CHIQ Summer 2021, he referenced his 1997 essay published in the Pieper Lectures, Volume 1, The Office of the Ministry. But since he said in the book review: "This review is not the place for detailed critique," I decided to study his 1997 essay, and found quite a defense of Walther's teaching over against that of Lieberg. Lieberg is Pres. Harrison's favorite reference in his editorial comments for his translation of Walther's book, Church and Office. I counted 20 such refereces throughout Harrison's commentary.

      Dr. Schurb's 1997 essay was written long before the 2020 CPH English translation of Lieberg came out, but his comments on the 1962 original German book would apply equally to the new CPH/Matthew Carver English translated book, essentially the same book.  And what did Dr. Schurb have to say about Lieberg and his theology? 

• (p. 62:) "…the universal priesthood held no fundamental significance for their subject’s doctrine of the Ministry. Hellmut Lieberg most forcefully advanced this thesis as he set Luther and Melanchthon side-by-side, heightening the contrast between them on this point." [Erring theologians often attempt to drive a wedge between Luther and Melanchthon.]
• (p. 63:) "A handy way for us to concentrate on Hellmut Lieberg’s view is by way of contrast with Walther’s."
• (p. 67) "Curiously, Hellmut Lieberg averred that in general Melanchthon knew of a right to administer Word and Sacrament common to all Christians, but he said Melanchthon based it on the share they have in the power of the keys — not on the universal priesthood!" [Dr. Schurb rescues Melanchthon's legacy from this notion of Lieberg.]
• (p. 78) "The Latin original of the Treatise went on to say that because (ob eam causam) the Church has the keys principally and immediately, therefore the Church has the authority to call pastors. It is questionable whether Lieberg fully appreciated that point."
• (p. 78-79) "Against the idea that each Christian has the full power of the keys, Lieberg ventured this claim…"
• (p. 83) "…[Lieberg's] claim that the keys are given only to the apostles but not to the Church."

Dr. Schurb's scholarship on both the Lutheran Confessions and Hellmut Lieberg was most helpful to understand better the doctrines of "Church and Ministry" and the errors of Lieberg. He levels some serious points against Lieberg. And even more, he states the following in his CHIQ Summer 2021 book review:

[Lieberg] "made no secret of his aspirations that his work would exert an influence in systematics, toward … the newer direction taken during the nineteenth century by Loehe, Vilmar, Stahl, and Kliefoth."

But yet Pres. Harrison boldly labels Loehe as the "co-founder" of the LC-MS. Even though Dr. Schurb has "hit the nail on the head" in his defense of Walther's theology against Lieberg (and Loehe), yet I think that Pres. Harrison is correct in his assertion, that Loehe is indeed the "co-founder" of the LC-MS, but not the Old Missouri Synod. — All of this begs the question: Why was Dr. Ken Schurb never a regular professor at one of the LC-MS seminaries? Is it because he was too "Missourian"?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      So I have reached the end of this blog series that establishes that Pres. Harrison's assertions in his editorial comments on Walther's Church and Office are not true. It was an unpleasant task. I find myself "stuck in the middle" with Walther (see Part CM6c – corrected 2024-07-21).

      But the LC-MS could take the shortcut to a return to orthodoxy if it would recognize Preger's findings (in Part CM4b), that Loehe and Kliefoth were turning away from the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification, and so they need to study Walther's clear teaching of Universal, Objective Justification, or sola fide – "by faith alone". May the Lord God grant them grace to see their way to that path to the true Gospel. Amen!

CM9b: Lochner & Craemer: "Missourians until death" (not Loehe's men)

   This continues from Part CM9a (Table of Contents in Part CM1) in a series defending Walther against a false portrayal by LC-MS President Matthew Harrison on the doctrines of Church and Ministry. — Although I was going to leave the testimony of Pastor Lochner and Prof. F. A. Craemer at what I presented in Part CM9a, I have since discovered a striking testimony of how close these two men were while Craemer was living. We saw that both prominent men of the Old Missouri Synod were not only Loehe's protégés, but also later testified against his errors on Church and Ministry. The two were somewhat separated from each other in their careers after their departure from Germany, but they once again were joined in the same city in 1876, in Springfield, Illinois, where Craemer was professor and head of the Practical Seminary and Lochner had accepted a call to a congregation in Springfield, and to be an instructor at the same seminary.  Pastor Lochner describes the heartfelt letter that Craemer wrote to him when he found out about Lochner's coming to Springfield, in Der Lutheraner vol. 48 (1892), p. 49 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

In my [Lochner’s] call to the congregation, Crämer recognized God's wonderful and kind providence with a joyful and grateful movement of his heart. On December 15, 1875, he wrote: 

“God bless you for making the sacrifice out of love for the church and accepting the call here [in Springfield]. Your letter has made bright tears run down my old, hard knot.”... “Just as we once set out from Germany as 'Franconian Mecklenburgers' to serve the church here [in America], so the faithful and wonderful God is bringing us together again at the end of our careers as 

‘Missourians until death’. 

Yes, that is a lovely, heart-warming thought.”

He wrote just as happily on January 12, 1876: 

“Yesterday evening my dear colleague [Henry] Wyneken and his family arrived here, and thank God they are all safe and well. And in about a month, just around the time when we [Lochner & Crämer] started our journey together in Germany 31 years ago, you will also come. My heart is full of praise and thanks to God, because now I have hope that I will revive in Springfield, where I have been crushed and brought to the ground, because now there is a prospect that the community here will flourish and the institution can take root.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      While Pres. Harrison chastises "every well-meaning Missourian" for believing the doctrines of Church and Ministry that Lochner and Craemer followed, they are quite content to be… ‘Missourians until death’ on these doctrines, as was Walther. They were definitely not Loehe's men anymore. Yes indeed, dear Prof. Craemer, that is “a lovely, heart-warming thought”! — In the concluding Part CM10 we dig into an extensive essay by a noted LC–MS theologian, Prof. Ken Schurb.

CM9a: Lochner & Craemer on Loehe's Romanizing: co-founder vs. "co-founder"

Pastor Fr. Lochner

   This continues from Part CM8 (Table of Contents in Part CM1) in a series defending Walther against a false portrayal by LC-MS President Matthew Harrison on the doctrines of Church and Ministry. — I have pointed out in a recent blog how noted old Missouri Synod Pastor Friedrich Lochner pronounced the break with Pastor Wilhelm Löhe as "necessary" and recognized that his replacement Pastor Friedrich Brunn was "faithful" by comparison. 

Missouri Synod co-founder
F. A. Crämer

    But an even more forceful testimony against Loehe was also reported by Lochner in his 1891-1892 16-part biographical essay on Pastor/Professor Friedrich August Craemer (or Crämer; † 1891) after Craemer's passing. Lochner called himself the "oldest friend" of Craemer, indicating their close relationship through the years of Craemer's illustrious life. Both Lochner and Craemer had early close relations with Pastor Loehe in Germany—Lochner more so than Craemer. 

      This blog post is only focusing on one segment of the full biography of Craemer, where Lochner dealt with the subject of Loehe's erring doctrines of Church and Ministry. How did these former students and missionaries of Loehe handle this difficult situation? Were there differences between Lochner's and Craemer's handling of Loehe's errors? We get answers to these questions in the December 22, 1891 Der Lutheraner installment, where Lochner describes the pivotal point in Craemer's career, from a frontier mission pastor at Frankenmuth, Michigan, to the professorship and head of the Practical Seminary at Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1850. At this time Loehe was still sending students and pastors to the Missouri Synod that had been newly formed just 3 years earlier in 1847. At the time of Craemer's nomination in 1849, both Lochner and Craemer were as much Loehe's men as they were Missouri Synod men. This situation is described by Pastor Lochner in Der Lutheraner, v. 47, Dec. 22, 1891, p. 204, [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Honorary Memorial

for the blessed

Friedrich August Crämer.

Professor of Theology and Director of the Practical Theological 

Seminary at Springfield, Ill, by his oldest friend F. Lochner.

(Continued.)

But now the time had come for Crämer to lay down the pastoral staff he had held in Frankenmuth for only five years and be placed in a completely different field of work. The first professor of the practical theological seminary, the unforgettable August Wolter, who was only 31 years old, had fallen victim to the terrible cholera raging in our country on August 31, 1849, after barely three years of blessed work, by voluntarily submitting himself and his students to the care of the church members affected by the epidemic, and Professor A. Biewend, who had provisionally taken over the teaching after Wolter's death, had been transferred to the preacher's seminary in St. Louis. In October 1850, Crämer was unanimously elected professor of the Practical Seminary.

The electoral college's nomination of Crämer as a candidate for the vacant professorship in Der Lutheraner at the beginning of August [vol. 6, p. 200, August 6, 1850] hit him and his congregation like a bolt from the blue. Not only had the initial conditions of the settlement been overcome and the congregation well organized, but now the bond between the pastor and a congregation whose purpose and origins had been so peculiar and which, after five years of living together under such peculiar conditions, had become ever more firmly knit, was suddenly to be severed. But there was something else why pastor and congregation could not find a solution to this relationship. These were the differences that were now coming to light between Pastor Löhe and the Missouri Synod regarding the doctrine of Church and Ministry, ordination, church authority and church constitution.[Lochner's emphasis]

Even when this writer [Lochner] had sent Löhe a copy of the draft of a synod constitution that had been drawn up in St. Louis immediately after his return home [~ July 1846], the latter [Löhe], for all his joy at the establishment of a synod union between his missionaries [Sendlinge] and the Saxons, expressed a number of reservations. He believed he saw democratic, independentist principles in the church constitution. He also missed the episcopal element in the provisions on the synod leadership, and the equality of the parish deputies with the pastors at the synods seemed to him to be "democratizing" and "Americanizing". When, however, as a result of this, some of the missionaries had doubts as to whether they could also drop the representation of Löhe's thoughts on church constitution without internal disloyalty by accepting such a constitution and therefore turned to Löhe for advice and instructions, the latter [Löhe] nevertheless wrote to Dr. Sihler on October 12, 1846: 

Wilhelm  Löhe

"To overcome the concerns of the Saxon brothers, my thought would require representation, which is currently impossible. But I value unity much more than the realization of my dearest thoughts in this matter. I am very serious that unity is the main thing on the basis — not on the basis of all Luther's words (for the Church did not follow him in everything) — but on the basis of the Book of Concord of 1580. Therefore, I also hereby release all my friends who have some reservations about the new synod constitution from any real or believed obligation to assert anything other than what was adopted in the Fort Wayne conference. They may, in my judgment, join the Synod with full peace of mind, and, were I over there, I would also join." 

And even though he resisted the interpretation that he had changed his convictions, he concluded: "Unity is to me the most beautiful point in the whole development of the matter; before it is given up, everything else should give way." But when Löhe's Aphorisms on the New Testament Offices and their Relationship to the Congregation appeared in 1849, it became apparent that the difference that had emerged concerning our synod constitution had deeper roots, and our synod realized with dismay that Löhe was following hierarchical principles in the doctrine of the Church, the Office of the Ministry, and the like, and had entered the path of Romanism. [Lochner’s judgment also.]

Crämer could have had no trace of the above concerns [of Löhe] about our synod constitution. He, with whom I had already occasionally perceived in Germany from disputations he sometimes had with Löhe that he feared a Romanizing tendency in Löhe, welcomed in the draft of our synod constitution the expression of his innermost convictions, and therefore, after returning from that Fort Wayne conference in August [1846], introduced his congregation [in Frankenmuth] to it and instructed them about the biblical doctrine of Church and Ministry on which it was based. The result was that the congregation joined the synod all the more joyfully in the spring of 1847, or rather, helped to found it. It was therefore inevitable that Löhe's aphorisms upset the congregation and Crämer felt compelled to instruct them about their [Löhe’s “Aphorisms”] errors and to speak out openly against Löhe in a letter.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      As I was reading carefully what Lochner reported above, I wanted to know if Lochner was in full agreement with Craemer regarding the seriousness of Loehe's errors on the doctrines of Church and Ministry. Craemer had noticed Loehe's errors even before he left for America, whereas apparently Lochner had not.  But Lochner shows above that he indeed had learned from Scripture, Walther, and  Craemer that Loehe's "hierarchical principles" were wrong, and reports his dismay along with that of his Missouri Synod. Lochner, Craemer's "oldest friend", found himself in full agreement with him.

      We note that Lochner specifically indicates that Craemer's congregation helped found the Missouri Synod, making Craemer a "co-founder".

     I was surprised, even shocked, to read of Loehe's duplicitous nature during this period, where he said that "unity is the main thing", explicitly stating that he "would also join" the Missouri Synod if he were here, yet it was Loehe who founded the opposition synod, the Iowa Synod, shortly thereafter. Although this would have been especially painful for Lochner, we find that Lochner stood firm against the errors of Loehe as he started and edited a periodical in 1857-1858 (see here) to counteract these errors. (Too bad for Prof. Benjamin Mayes)

      And so we see once more that the praise being given to Pastor Lochner by Pres. Matthew Harrison and the organization "Gottesdienst" for his knowledge of liturgical matters rings hollow for they would rather praise Wilhelm Loehe more than Lochner in the doctrines of Church and Ministry, certainly more than Friedrich August Craemer who directly disputed with Loehe on his errors.

      What an honor it is for me to be able to honor these men of the OLD Missouri Synod, formerly Loehe's missionaries who would not be misled by Loehe's later errors. Would to God LC–MS President Matthew Harrison, and the LC–MS, would heed and honor the true co-founder Craemer, as Pastor Lochner did, and not put Loehe in place of him. It seems the LC–MS is more Loehe's Iowa Synod than Walther's Missouri Synod. — In the next Part CM9b we present a "lovely, heart-warming thought" from the dear Prof. Craemer.