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…