GB9: Confession not forced, but needed; Luther & Köstlin vs Buchwald, lazy pastors

     This continues from Part GB8 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. — Now Walther uses Buchwald's errors to instruct his readers on proper Lutheran practice on confession and Christian education. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.137-139 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

Even the fact that Luther does not want to know of any compulsion to confess, but leaves confession “to the need”, does not give the slightest comfort to a preacher who shies away from the effort of examination. For by rejecting the compulsion to confess, Luther does not mean to approve of a person despising confession and going to the holy Lord's Supper as to a common meal; on the contrary, Luther is against the compulsion to confess primarily so that people do not, as for example in the papacy at Easter, enjoy Holy Communion for judgment out of mere compulsion without recognizing their sin and without hunger and thirst for grace. This is why Köstlin quotes the following passage from Luther's 1521 treatise “On Confession, whether the Pope has the power to command” as the last of the words he quotes from Buchwald against the compulsion to confess: 

“Behold, this is what you senseless, raging Pope does with your sects, you worst enemies of God. Secret confession is an opened treasure of grace, in which God holds and offers his mercy and forgiveness of all sin, and is a blessed, rich promise of God, which neither compels nor forces anyone, but lures and calls everyone. So you plod along with your iniquity, forcing all the world to such goods, knowing and seeing that they are not yet eager for them, nor do they take them, nor do they keep them. What else are you doing here but taking God for a fool, who should spill his goods for the sake of your compulsion, bringing him many heaps for whom he should give, and there is no one who desires his. O what an abuse of noble and precious goods you are making, you wretched pope, that I may say that there is certainly no more sinful and damnable day in the year than Easter Day; and if the whole year were a vain carnival and all days were spent in dancing and drinking, there would not be as many and as great sins as there are now in the most holy time of fasting, and before that in the weeks of torture and Easter feasts. . . For all those who are reluctant to confess and go to the sacrament, and do not desire it from the heart, would be better off falling into grave public sin.” (Erl. A. 27, 354.) 

Did our apologist of his state church, when he quoted Köstlin, perhaps not read this passage faithfully quoted by the latter himself? <page 138> Otherwise we must fear that he has understood neither Köstlin nor Luther correctly.

Incidentally, the Licentiate himself seems to have felt that his interpretation of Luther's words was diametrically opposed to almost innumerable statements he had made on the subject in question. He writes in a footnote: 

“We know quite well that Luther expressed himself differently about private confession under other circumstances. But this proves that his changing private opinion cannot be made the norm of a church.” (Underlined by Buchwald) 

This subterfuge, however, which denigrates Luther as a weather-vane, is barred to the lord Licentiate, for it is clear from what has been communicated how even Luther's many most decided demands, that a conscientious pastor should admit to Holy Communion only those who have been previously examined (with the exception, of course, of those who have long since been examined, such as Master Philip and others), are in complete harmony with what Köstlin has Luther say in accordance with the truth, both with regard to examination and the compulsion to confess. We are permitted to present only the following two passages from Luther's writings here.

Thus Luther wrote in his revised "Instruction of the Visitors to the Pastors" of 1528 [AE 40, 296; StL 10, 1660]: 

“The papal confession is not commanded to tell all sins; this is also impossible, as it says in Psalm 19:12): ‘Who can tell how often he has sinned? Forgive me for the hidden faults’. But people should be admonished to confess for many reasons, especially those cases in which they need advice and which weigh them down the most. Nor should anyone be allowed to go to the Holy Sacrament unless he is specially interrogated by his pastor as to whether he is sent to the holy Sacrament. For St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11 (v. 27) that those are guilty of the body and blood of Christ who partake of it unworthily. They dishonor the sacrament not only those who take it unworthily, but also those who give it with indolence to the unworthy. For the common man runs to the sacrament for the sake of habit, and does not know why the sacrament is needed. Whoever does not know this should not be admitted to the sacrament.” (Erl. A. vol. 23, 40.) Cf. also the splendid passage in Luther's “Formula missae et communionis pro ecclesia Wittenbergensi” of 1523. S. Lutheri opp. lat. varii argumenti. Francof. ad M. 1873. vol. VII, 12-14. German in Walch X, 2764-2766 [StL 10, 2247 f.; AE 53, 32 f.])

If we now also share the following passage from Luther's “Warning to those at Frankfurt am M.” of the year 1533, we must <page 139> first ask the tender ears of German readers to forgive it; but it is too characteristic, so that we cannot well suppress it here. After Luther has praised our freedom from papist auricular confession and exhorted us to the right evangelical confession, he continues: 

"It is true that where the preachers pass vain bread and wine for the sacrament, it does not much matter to whom they pass it or what those who receive it can and do believe. One sow eats with another, and they are simply overburdened with such troubles; for they want to have wicked great saints, and do not think to educate Christians, but want to make it so that for more than three years everything is disturbed, neither God, nor Christ, nor sacrament, nor Christians remain. But because we intend to educate Christians and to leave them behind us and to pass on Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, we do not want to and cannot give such a sacrament to anyone, but let him first be questioned as to what he has learned from the Catechism and whether he wants to refrain from sins that he has committed against it. For we do not want to turn Christ's church into a stable of swine and let everyone go to the sacrament unheard, like swine to the trough. We blame such churches on the enthusiasts." (Erl. A. vol. 26, 307. Walch XVII, 2449. F. [StL 17, 2018-2019])

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part GB10  - - - - - - - - - - -

      Walther uses Luther to instruct lazy pastors to do their evangelical job in examining potential communicants. — In the next Part GB10…

GB8: Communion discipline; Ph.D’s “irrelevant conclusion”; certainty of absolution

      This continues from Part GB7 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. — Now begins a lengthy section, and several blog posts, on Holy Communion, specifically the difficult matters of confession of sins and examination of potential communicants. It was taken up by Pastor Willkomm in his "Open Letter" to the State Church pastors, as Walther explains. But does our Ph.D. Buchwald address the issue head-on or not? Walther lets us know. 

      Again, the green-shaded text points out Buchwald's misuse of logic. It was not always easy for me to spot these, but Walther's sharp spiritual understanding ferrets out these for all to judge. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.134-137 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

But let's go further. 1) 

—————

1) Yesterday, to our delight, we received a 36-page pamphlet in large octavo with the following title: "The Good Rule of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Free Church, its doctrinal position and church practice, against the unjust accusations of the Lic. Dr. Buchwald defended by O. Willkomm, P. Zwickau, printed and published by Johannes Herrmann [Concordia Historical Institute holds a copy]. On commission from Heinrich J. Naumann in Dresden. 1886." This pamphlet makes our entire article superfluous, but since Licentiate Dr. Buchwald has not only attacked our confessionalists and comrades-in-arms in Germany, but also our local [American] Free Church, it should be neither improper nor useless for us to take part in the defense of our common cause with few words. We say with few words, because we can now be all the more brief in what follows, the more victoriously Pastor Willkomm has already beaten back the attacks on us contained in Buchwald's pamphlet.

Pastor Willkomm had written in his "open letter": 

"Secondly, we want Holy Communion in the Lutheran Church to be served only to those who, as far as can be recognized by conscientious examination, have a sufficient knowledge of the pure doctrine and profess it, and who are also determined, with God's help, to lead a Christian way of life — in a word, we want communion discipline according to the old practice of the Lutheran Church." 

What does the Doctor of Philosophy (Doctor philosophiae) answer to this? First, on p. 12, he again makes use of the popular fallacia ignorati elenchi [“irrelevant conclusion”, “missing the point”] and compositionis. [“fallacy of unknown composition”]. Instead of dealing solely with the necessity of the so-called confessional report and the examination connected with it, of which Pastor Willkomm alone had spoken, he speaks against <page 135> "compulsion to confess" and the "questioning of the confessor about individual sins" and their "enumeration"; all of which Willkomm had not said a word. To represent the opponent correctly is the first requirement of honest polemics. He who, after the manner of our Iowans, first insinuates allegations against his opponent and then takes up arms against his figure, and is satisfied if readers incapable of judgment allow themselves to be misled by this, or if party comrades turn a blind eye to it and celebrate him as the victor, God is not with him and he is neither in the service of truth nor in the service of love and justice. [misuse of logic]

Buchwald continues on p. 12 f.: 

"If, by the way, Pastor Willkomm considers his ‘communion discipline’ to be ‘Lutheran’, he is probably mistaken. We refer him only to [Julius] Köstlin, Luthers Theologie. Vol. II, p. 529, where the exact references are also given. There Luther's doctrine is stated by the man who certainly knows it best among our contemporaries: ‘It is enough that one admits to being a sinner and tells the individual sins for which one needs special consolation. From those who already know what sin is, such as pastors, Melanchthon, etc., the enumeration of sins is not to be demanded’. — What Luther already said in 1518 applies: ‘It must be enough for the priest that I ask for confession and absolution without him having to be certain of my repentance and my faith, — even before the Lord's Supper.’” — (Underlined by Buchwald himself.)

First of all, we note the following: It is quite wrong that our pamphleteer, instead of letting Luther himself speak about how he teaches on this point, has someone else, namely Köstlin, give a lecture. Buchwald assures us, it is true, that in Köstlin's work the references are exactly given; but of what use is this to him who has not the work? We do not wish to assert that Köstlin did not really substantiate his exposition of Luther's teaching on the present question with passages from Luther's writings; but how little one can generally rely on contemporary German theologians quoting Luther is shown, among other things, by their citations to prove that Luther had a very lax theory of inspiration. 2) 

—————

2) Cf. p. 7 ff. of the current volume of Lehre und Wehre. [LuW 32 (1886), 7] [e.g. “a derogatory judgment of Luther's about a Scripture that he did not consider canonical”]

In any case, a Lutheran in our Free Church demands that he should not be expected to rely on men in such highly important matters, whether his name is Köstlin or Buchwald. We remark, secondly, on Buchwald's quotation from Köstlin: It is further wrong that Buchwald has omitted the words with which the quoted passage begins and which form the key to what follows, especially to the sentence underlined by Buchwald himself! the words namely: "But never again shall the <page 136> old torture with the enumeration of all individual sins occur. It is enough" etc. Köstlin therefore does not want to prove with the following what Buchwald wants to prove with it, namely that Luther declares an examination in the Protestant manner to be an unnecessary thing, but that he did not want to see the "old torture with the enumeration of all individual sins" reintroduced. How wrongly Buchwald therefore understood Luther's words, which he emphasized, "it must be enough for the priest", which of course are a true gospel in Buchwald's mind for uncertain administrators of Holy Communion in the state churches, — this becomes even clearer when Luther's words are, as is fair, considered in their context. They occur in his "Sermon on the Sacrament of Penance" of 1518. (Erl. ed. vol. 20. p. 179. ff.) The words immediately preceding those quoted, however, read as follows [of Luther]: 

"Twelfth, there are some who have taught us that we should and must be uncertain of absolution, whether we are received into grace and our sins are forgiven, because we do not know whether repentance is sufficient or whether enough has been done for the sin; the priest may not impose a penance worthy of the same on ignorance. — Beware of these "seductive" unchristian chatterers. The priest must be unsure of your repentance and faith; there is nothing to it. It is enough for him that you confess and ask for absolution; he should give it to you and he owes it to you." (op. cit. p. 185. f.) 

Everyone can see that this passage is first of all directed against those papists who teach that absolution is only a true absolution if the person coming to confession has sufficient contrition for the sin; however, neither the penitent nor the confessor can be certain of this, and the latter therefore cannot know whether the reparations which he imposes in order to obtain forgiveness of sin are "equally worthy" or whether the guilt has really been made up for; therefore one should and must always be uncertain whether one has really been absolved. Contrary to this abominable error, Luther now says that the validity and power of absolution is based neither on this certainty of the one confessing nor on that of the confessor. If, therefore, as far as the priest is concerned, he may always be uncertain (just as it is not at all possible for him to be uncertain, since he cannot see into the heart), it must be sufficient for him if the confessor only desires this twofold: first, that the priest hears his confession as a poor, unworthy, lost and damned sinner, and second, that he then speaks to him the forgiveness of all his sins in Christ's stead. From this it is clear that as far as the salvation and relative necessity of confession and examination are concerned, nothing at all is said in that passage by Luther, <page 137> neither for nor against it. 

At any rate, there is not a drop of consolation in it for the dissolute practice prevailing in the state churches. For the task of the exploration is not to investigate the secret sins of the confessor, to test the perfection of his repentance or even to impose penances on him, but to test him as to whether he wants to go to Holy Communion out of habit or for the sake of the people, without knowledge of his sins and without a believing desire for forgiveness, and, if so, to help him to obtain what he lacks and to receive Holy Communion worthily, not for his judgment.

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part GB9  - - - - - - - - - - -

      Buchwald attempts to enlist the more well-known Luther scholar Julius Köstlin, and Luther, to try to refute Pastor Willkomm. At first it almost fooled me as I read it, but it backfires as Walther exposes Buchwald's poor logic and theology. Walther, while not denigrating the "Doctor of Philosophy", would not allow such to have authority over the Bible… the same as Luther. — In the next Part GB9…

GB7: Confessional; forced removal?; Backward theology? Yes!

      This continues from Part GB6 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. — Walther calls out Buchwald for creating caricatures and "foolish opponents" to use for his faulty assertions shines in his refutation of this Luther scholar. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.131-134 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

In short, our [i.e. Germany’s and Walther’s] Free Church takes the <page 132> declaration of principles of our church in its final Confession very seriously: 

"We believe, teach and confess that the only rule and guideline by which all doctrines and teachers are to be judged and sentenced are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone, as it is written: 'Your word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path', Ps. 119:105, and St. Paul: 'If an angel came from heaven and preached otherwise, let him be accursed', Gal. 1:8." (The symbol. Bücher der ev.-luth. Kirche, ed. by Müller. Epitome of the Formula of Concord, p. 517 [FC Ep 1, Trigl. 577, 1]) 

Although Dr. Buchwald wants to justify the hideous picture he has painted of our Free Church from the proceedings of our Synod in the years 1856 and 1857 1) with a chiliast, the caricature he creates by picking out this and that tendentiously from it is not worthy of consideration. If you want to find out about our procedure, read the relevant synod reports yourself and do not rely on our opponents in the old fatherland.

—————

1) Buchwald transfers the proceedings to the years 1875 and 1877.

After Buchwald has sketched his distorted picture, he writes on p. 11: 

"Now we only ask: is it in truth one doctrine that exists there, if one forcibly gets rid of those who teach otherwise?" 

To this we reply as follows. First of all, we cannot understand the logic that if one really gets rid of those who believe and teach differently by force, then "in truth there is no doctrine". Secondly, it is not true that in our Free Church we get rid of those who believe and teach differently by force. Of course, there can be no question of physical violence here. Buchwald is therefore obviously attributing moral violence to us here. 

But how does he intend to prove this? During a period of 1½ years our synod, first the district synod in question and then the general synod, in public assembly as well as in private through committees appointed by it, refuted the erring man's error from the relevant passages of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments until he could no longer raise anything against it. 

Even by the authority of the confessions, to which he was nevertheless bound, we did not seek to bind his conscience. For we know well that when a man has gone astray from a truth confessed by the Church, his conscience cannot, nor should it, be caught by the Church's confession, but must go back to God's Word, to which alone conscience, as the voice of God, can and must submit. So let us now ask: Is this practice a "forcible removal of those who teach otherwise"? <page 133> Buchwald himself will not claim this. The belligerent apologist for the state churches has evidently once again transformed the idea he has abstracted from his derived sources of our Free Church into a historical account. [i. e. re-writing history]. It is also in this area that he claims, as we have seen above, that "he who refuses to accept the (synod) decision is excommunicated"; for if Buchwald takes excommunication in the usual sense of the ban, this is also quite untrue. Our Synod never ascribed the power of excommunication to itself, but left it, as well as the power of deposition, to the parishes to which it belonged. If, however, our apologist understands excommunication to mean exclusion from the synod without admixture, then it is certainly true that our synod excludes from the synod fellowship those who have been taken in by fundamental errors and are not at all wise, because in this case it can no longer work together with them in the work of the Lord. But this has nothing to do with the ban, to which only stubborn unbelievers [Unchristen] can and should be put. 

With this abolition of church fellowship, however, we find ourselves in complete agreement with our noble Evangelical-Lutheran Church, which testifies in the Formula of Concord: "We also believe, teach and confess that no church should condemn the other, that one has fewer or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other, when otherwise in doctrine and all the same articles, as well as in the use of the holy sacraments, unity is held with one another." (op. cit. p. 553. § 7 [FC Ep X, 7; Trigl. 831, 7]) If the state church, of which Buchwald is the apologist, rejects this principle, it is high time that it should discard the name "Lutheran". —

On p. 11. of our pamphlet it now goes on to say: 

"The theology of the Free Church is merely ‘backward theology’ and that is its fault, this is how it will fall." (Underlined by us)

The former we wholeheartedly accept; the latter, however, we deny; instead of regarding it as its error, we regard it as its merit and, instead of a sign of its decline, as the only guarantee of its continued existence. The theology of our Free Church goes backwards every day to Moses, the prophets and the apostles, that is true; but it is precisely in this backwardness that it seeks its forwardness. 

Our theology is not a new one, but the old one, whose leaves, however, never wither, for it is planted on the right water coves [Wasserbuchen]; it is therefore not, as Buchwald fantasizes, a dead “scholasticism” that deals with idle questions, but a theology that deals with pure questions of life, and which therefore, by God's grace, has already <page 134> borne much fruit. We do not want a new theology any more than we want a new church and religion. Nor do we idly rest on the old truth as a dead inherited capital, but work diligently to make it new and ever more alive in us, to penetrate it ever more deeply, to experience it ever more powerfully and to utilize it ever better for the edification of the church on the foundation that has been laid, which is Jesus Christ. 

Modern theology may call its progress a further development, but this is pure deception. For it does not really develop the already existing truth, but takes it away. The result of this "further development" of modern theology has so far been that it has partly eliminated a large number of old truths, partly made them waver, but has not brought to light a new alleged truth which a Christian can accept with certainty and joy of faith and die on it. We are therefore not ashamed to confess what Luther once confessed to the papists: "We invent nothing new, but hold and adhere to the old Word of God, as the old church did. ... For they find nothing with us but only the old things of the old church." (“Against Hans Wurst”, of the year 1541. XVII, 1659 [AE 41, 196; StL 17, 1324])

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part GB8  - - - - - - - - - - -

      Sometimes one has to look carefully to see who is talking in this narrative — Luther or Walther — so closely do their narratives match one another. Both held to "the old things of the old church", the "old Word". — In the next Part GB8…