GB5: The Confessions vs. the Bible? Divinely assured by God's Word alone? Baier's Compendium

      This continues from Part GB4 (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 highlights the authority of the Confessions: God's Word alone. Buchwald tries to use deceptive logic to subordinate the Bible. — Buchwald mentions Baier's Compendium which Walther had republished with his own additions. What is informative here is that Walther reveals why he used Baier as a basis for his work. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), p.104:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

We must declare it a wretched slander, however harsh it may sound, when Buchwald p. 8. f. writes: 

"In the Free Church the Bible is generally held in too low esteem in comparison with the value of the symbols. It is in fact only regarded as a collection of proofs for the 'One Pure Doctrine', as it is laid down in the symbolic books and the old dogmatists (above all: Beier [sic: should be Baier] 1)). 

—————

1) Thus written by Buchwald himself. We must confess that we are very tempted to conclude from this spelling of the name of the old dogmatist Baier that the Licentiate knows him only by hearsay. This may be as he likes, but it is true that we have taken Baier's Compendium as a basis for our dogmatic lectures, but that he is nothing less than a special dogmatic authority to us, that we have chosen his compendium for our textbook over others for quite different reasons, that we always read it with a critical eye and also seek to sharpen the theological judgment of our students in this way; in short, that the theological essence and life which the doctor is so kind as to ascribe to us is nothing but a picture of his only too creative imagination. 

“The Bible, which should be the source of doctrine, is thus made the testimony to it, and vice versa: the symbols and orthodox dogmatics, the testimony to the source of doctrine.” 2) (Underlined by Buchwald himself.)

Only a fanatic who has not yet sharpened his conscience for truthfulness can write like this. Only a skeptic can write like this, who considers it an impossibility to be divinely assured by God's Word alone, that the doctrine of our Confessions is the doctrine of God's Word. Only a man can write like this who only asks whether his judgment will be applauded by his party members as a tremendous trump card, without asking whether he can also justify it before the God of truth and justice.

(Conclusion follows.)

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part GB6  - - - - - - - - - - -

      Walther extracts what Buchwald is actually saying, and makes a very strong charge against him that probably no other scholar makes: "a wretched sceptic". Walther uncovers the nakedness of this famous German Luther scholar and theologian. — I found it to be humorous that Buchwald would charge the Free Church or Walther with lowering the Bible as the source of doctrine, since Walther was noted to be a "Scripture theologian".  — In the next Part GB6…

GB4: Luther’s Bible; doctrinal discipline, unity of doctrine; Röbbelen & canonicity of Revelation

      This continues from Part GB3 (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. — When the subject of Luther's Bible came up in this segment, I sat up in my chair, for his translation has been neglected in the LC–MS since its transformation to the English language. Then issues of doctrinal unity and discipline are addressed. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp. 101-104:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

When the author writes of Pastor Willkomm in the following p. 5. f. that he gives Luther's translation of the Bible an “absolute <Page 102> immutability”, this is merely a tendentious distortion of the latter's [Willkomm’s] words. Willkomm had written: 

“When you” (those 41 clergymen [opposing clergy of the State Church]) “write: ‘We still have our dear Bible in Luther's robust, pithy translation’, I admire your boldness, since it cannot be hidden from you that the Saxon Church government in particular is eagerly pursuing the introduction of the revised [Luther] Bible. So how long will you still have this fame?" — 

Incidentally, since the conviction that Luther's translation of the Bible should be retained for many reasons not to be discussed here is not something specific to the Free Church, we will not go into this point here either.

From pages 6 to 11, the writer deals with the accusation of a lack of doctrinal discipline, which Pastor Willkomm had raised against the Saxon state church. The first thing that the Licentiate remarks against this is the following: 

"First of all, Pastor Willkomm accuses our church of a lack of unity in doctrine. To this we must reply that never and nowhere, not even in the Free Church, has such unity existed, and for internal reasons it cannot exist in the contending Church, which has not yet reached the triumph of perfection, ‘until we all come to the same faith and knowledge of the Son of God’ (Eph. 4:13)." (Underlined by us)

This honest admission that the Saxon state church lacks "unity in doctrine" will not be pleasant for some members of the state church, but we accept it with great gratitude. This already proves everything that Pastor Willkomm wanted to prove. For an ecclesiastical fellowship which itself professes not to be united in doctrine, and even declares such unity to be impossible, is not a church into which an orthodox Christian can enter or in which he can remain with a clear conscience, but rather a United one. Licentiate Buchwald again cites 1 Cor. 1:10 ff. to prove his theory, but with great injustice, for Paul, Apollos and Cephas were, as already noted, united in doctrine. Of course, Buchwald also wants "all to remain on the one foundation 'which is laid, which is Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 3:11), and all to confess: 'Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, and the same for ever' (Heb. 13:8)"; but a teacher of the Church, as such, remains on this foundation only if he adheres to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. To abandon the fundamentum doctrinale [doctrinal foundation], while wanting to hold on to the fundamentum personale, [personal foundation] is pure enthusiasm, or an empty pretense.

Buchwald continues on p. 7: 

"A unity of doctrine, as Pastor Willkomm demands it, i.e. a conception of the Christian truth of salvation, in which all agree down to the smallest and least without any individual coloring, with <page 103> abolishing all, even the most insignificant differences, is therefore not possible on the basis of Holy Scripture." (Underlined by Buchwald)

We remark on this: Only one of two things is possible here: either the writer wants to say that Pastor Willkomm really demands what the words seem to say, or the words are to be taken differently than they sound. We must not assume the former, as this would involve a deliberate untruth, since Pastor Willkomm did not explain this in his "Open Letter". The latter is therefore to be assumed in any case. Buchwald therefore adds himself: 

"Pastor Willkomm also seems to recognize this. For he wants 'doctrinal discipline on the basis of the Lutheran Confession' 2), i.e. on the basis of the symbolic books, including the Formula of Concord." (Underlined by us)

So that is what Licentiate Buchwald criticizes! He has nothing against obliging the church ministers to use the symbolic books, especially if it is done as it is in the Saxon church, but to practice doctrinal discipline on the basis of them is an abomination to him. He says

"For what would be the consequences? Above all, a complete undermining of theological science [Wissenschaft]. … It would be impossible to draw ever new things from the inexhaustible well of divine revelation."

That this is really the case is then demonstrated by the barrenness of the American Free Church, which apparently lacks "independent biblical research". As proof of this, reference is made to a letter of the blessed pastor Röbbelen, reported in Pastor Köstering's Geschichte der Auswanderung sächsischer Lutheraner p. 180 ff. [Koestering, The Emigration, CHI/CPH 2022, p. 138 ff.] in which he is said to have simply declared that he could not consider the book, the Revelation of St. John, to be canonical, "because Luther, who understood more of it than he did, did not consider it to be canonical either". We must therefore assume that Mr. Licentiate has not read the letter himself, but has drawn his communication of it, as he usually does, from derived sources; for it is not true that Röbbelen has made this statement. To be sure, he admits that Luther's judgment on the canonicity of the Apocalypse, this chosen armor, already makes him "inclined" to follow him, but hereupon he not only gives the reasons which moved Luther to his judgment and him, Röbbelen, to agree with it, but at the same time testifies that he could not follow Luther not only with regard to other Antilegomena, but also in that he had counted the Apocalypse among the Apocrypha in earlier years, while he (Röbbelen) only did not regard it as canonical, i.e. as such a biblical book. i.e. for such a biblical book which God has given us "as a guideline of doctrine". 

May this serve as a warning to the Licentiate not to condemn us on the basis of quotations from others, even from our opponents, which unfortunately happens disgracefully time and again, <page 104> especially in Germany. By the way, we gladly admit that we have done nothing for what is called theological science in Germany, namely that we have not discovered any new doctrine as a result of our study of Scripture and have not changed any of the doctrines of our church; but if there is any fellowship in which many people study the Scriptures independently day and night, it is ours. Anyone who has followed our entire development with its struggles in this sectarian land of ours and has read our publications will readily admit that this is no vain glory. But we must lament the fact that our opponents in the state churches seldom take their evidence and counter-evidence from the Scriptures to defend and refute us.

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part GB5  - - - - - - - - - - -

      It may be noted that the reference to Pastor Röbbelen's exposition of the Book of Revelation and its canonicity was also made by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann in an earlier blog RH13. One of the great values of the recent CHI/CPH translation of Pastor Koestering's book is the letter that Röbbelen sent to a disturbed congregation. Walther highly recommends it! — In the next Part GB5…

GB3: Proper church separation; State Church: no better if 100x better; idolizing Luther?

      This continues from Part GB2 (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. — Here again, Buchwald misuses logic, but Walther turns it back on him.

      Buchwald, according to the German Wikipedia article, "wrote a widely read biography of Luther that was published several times." It seems the world is full of Luther biographies, but are they true to Luther? Buchwald gives us reason to be wary of his biography, particularly in its spiritual content. More will come out on this in an upcoming segment, Part GB9, in relation to another German scholar, Julius Köstlin. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp. 100-101:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

Dr. Buchwald thus continues on p. 4: 

"There is only one just reason conceivable for separation from the Church: only that the Church itself has ceased to be the body of our one Head Jesus Christ, and consequently can neither maintain its adherents as members of the Head nor raise up new members of the same." (Underlined by Buchwald himself.)

Does the Doctor mean to say that one can only rightly separate oneself from a church if it no longer has so much of the saving truth that one can come to faith in it, remain in faith and be saved, then no Reformed person may separate himself from the Reformed, no Methodist from the Methodist, no Baptist from the Baptist church, etc., yes, even no Roman from the Roman. For in each of these fellowships a person can come to faith and be saved.

A more unionistic, syncretistic principle has hardly ever been expressed. This principle, however, seems to have been devised merely for the purpose of preventing anyone from separating from the state church, for if the state churchmen were really serious about this principle, they would also have to regard it as unscrupulous if a member of the Lutheran Free Church, a Methodist, a Baptist, or even a Roman separated from his church and wanted to join the state church, unless they considered their state church alone to be the body of Christ and the mother of all believers. That Luther, by the way, did not pay homage to that grossly syncretistic principle will not be denied by the gentlemen of the state church, at least by Dr. Buchwald himself. For Luther writes, among other things, thus:

"We must confess that the enthusiasts have the Scriptures and God's Word in other articles, and whoever hears and believes them will be saved, even though they are unholy heretics [Ketzer] and blasphemers of Christ" (Letter on Anabaptism, 1528. Walch XVII, 2675 [StL 17, 2212; AE 40, p. 251]);

and yet, as is well known, a year later in Marburg Luther renounced church fellowship with the Zwinglians and separated himself from them.

Buchwald continues on p. 4: 

“How the great apostle Paul condemned the sectarianism that was already stirring in Corinth in his time is clearly written in 1 Cor. 1:10-13. The separation of the Free Church is a transgression of this commandment of the apostle, which, despite different, subjective versions of Christian doctrine, calls us to hold together as the members of Christ; it is also a great injustice against Dr. Luther, whom we truly know just as well and respect just as highly <page 101>, but do not idolize as they do.” — 

What an exegesis and what an application! Paul punishes the Corinthians for their divisions because of their attachment to persons and their gifts, and the Mr. Licentiate applies this to divisions because of doctrine, namely because of false doctrine! Or did Paul, Apollos and Cephas have different doctrines? Or does the Saxon Free Church differ from the Saxon State Church only in "different, subjective versions of Christian doctrine", while both are united in the doctrine itself? [No.]

Our pamphlet continues on p. 5: 

"(Separation) is also a great injustice against Dr. Luther, whom we truly know just as well and respect just as highly, but do not idolize, as those do." — 

Unfortunately, it did not please the author to reveal what the injustice is that the separation is supposed to commit against Luther. Since, as he says, he "truly knows Luther as well" as the men of the Free Church, he doubtless also knows the almost innumerable declarations contained in his writings, in which he denies fraternal fellowship to all those who contradict God's clear words in any article of faith. Therefore, far from the Free Church doing Luther an injustice by separating from the Saxon Church, it is only following in his footsteps. 

It is true that the Saxon State Church still officially professes the symbols of the Evangelical Lutheran Church by means of a formula set on screws, but what doctrines resound from its cathedrals and pulpits? what doctrines are expounded and defended in the writings of its ecclesiastical writers? and does it not have its [Emil] Sulze, [Rudolf Friedrich] Grau [DE Wikipedia], etc., who blaspheme Christ in the face of their church guardians in an uncompromising manner? If, therefore, the Saxon doctrinal formula were a hundred times better than it is, it would be, far from being a testimony to its Lutheran character, only a louder testimony to its apostasy. She did indeed reveal what she wanted to be, but at the same time that she was not. — 

By the way, if the Licentiate accuses us of idolizing Luther, that is simply not true. We do not believe in Luther, we do not believe a word he says in divine matters because he says it; but we believe him when and where he clearly and distinctly proves his doctrine from God's Word. Is this idolatry? When Licentiate Buchwald refers to the well-known passage in which Luther warns us to call ourselves after him, as his master, but also warns us, where his doctrine is concerned, to "throw Luther down", and finally writes: "So you must say: 'Luther is a knave or a saint, I have no interest in that; but his doctrine is not his, but Christ's'" — neither the first nor the second warning applies to the Lutheran Free Church, but the latter applies to the state church .

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part GB4  - - - - - - - - - - -

      Walther firmly teaches that the Lutheran Church is NOT the alone saving church body, and neither was the German State Church. But following Buchwald's logic, the State Church is. If one has ever felt confused by confusing assertions of academic teachers regarding Christian doctrine and practice, then Walther is your friend. This essay will be one that I go back to, to fully learn Walther's ability to unravel false assertions by opponents. — In the next Part GB4…