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." —
![Free Church…only following in… [Luther’s] footsteps](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaeNJm-HoqrKx8i2QSpawYx7NiuK5mlSGeoOQGjYM1cPWGvoKTBqZ_p5HALZ0VsFxW3xdNlhBgXD0dtzwSTfexg4Vdxerwl2xFF6meyYA4Z10nEZkKoRGI49UPgSl6ERfBT5kaM7wzt1FYZMpYXR2yhGpET11US5duvkydb4WPQLZTFmBv1G4I3dfskg/s203/Free%20Church%E2%80%A6only%20following%20in%E2%80%A6%20%5BLuther%E2%80%99s%5D%20footsteps.png "Free Church…only following in… [Luther’s] footsteps")
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 .
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.