Scharlemann denied inerrancy even after Walkout, supported Sasse’s error on Scripture (Part 2 of 2)

      This concludes from Part 1 in a 2-part series, the final word on a prominent LC–MS theologian from before and after the Walkout of 1974, Dr. Martin Scharlemann. — To add to the mystery of Scharlemann's conflicted theology, in 2018, the ELCA seminary student Donn Wilson (her or him?) reported in the Master of Theology Theses in footnote #42, p. 72 the following: 

There is only conjecture to explain Scharlemann’s reversal. It obviously saved his career at CSSL. The possibility of becoming president of CSSL remained. He was a “good soldier” who knew how to follow orders in a system of structured authority. Even his brother-in-law, Edward Schroeder [a zealous Walkout participant], has no clear explanation for Scharlemann’s behavior.

"Biblicistic"?

Prof. Richard Klann, a colleague of Scharlemann who also did not participate in the Walkout, "spent many hours together" with Scharlemann in the 1960s and wrote the following in a Concordia Journal article in Nov. 1982, p. 203: "Lutheran principles of interpretation are [not] biblicistic…". Klann's, and by extension Scharlemann's, use of the term "biblicistic" is probably how he would characterize the hermeneutical teaching of Walther and Pieper.

- - - - - - - - - - -

      According to CHI, there is "36 linear feet" of Scharlemann's papers in their repository. And it was reported in the Summer of 2011 that these papers, which had been closed to research since Scharlemann's death in 1982, were then open for research. And apparently there was research done since that time. And it was none other than Pres. Matthew Harrison who would present the answer to the mystery surrounding Scharlemann's "reversal", his theology of Holy Scripture.

“A thorough study of Scharlemann's papers”:

      Along with Scharlemann's omission of an inerrant Bible in his entry on "Hermeneutics" in the 1975 Cyclopedia, we now have proof-positive from Scharlemann himself regarding his actual state of mind after his 1962 "withdrawal" of his controversial essays and now after the 1974 Walkout. This was revealed in Matthew Harrison's "Historical Introduction" to last year's (2024) book Rediscovering the Issues, p. 6 (note the parenthetical remark):

Not long after the Synod's 1969 convention, a few St. Louis faculty members expressed concerns about what was being taught at the seminary. Among them was Martin Scharlemann, who wrote President Preus on April 9, 1970, suggesting an official inquiry. (It might be noted, however, that even after the Walkout, in [July] 1975, Scharlemann wrote Hermann Sasse expressing his support for Sasse's Letters to Lutheran Pastors on Holy Scripture, particularly where Sasse rejected the position that Scripture is inerrant in every respect. Although otherwise orthodox Lutherans like Sasse and Scharlemann could retain the dogmatic context of the faith without a strict doctrine of inerrancy, most cannot, and certainly not members of following generations.)

It should be noted that in dating the letter to Sasse in the year 1975, Scharlemann was at that time the "chairman of the department of exegetical theology (1974-1976)", according to CHI's Historical Footnotes of Spring 2012, p. 3. So the chief LC–MS exegetical teacher, who did not join in the Walkout, did not teach the inerrancy of Scripture – how could he, if he did not believe it? Now all those pastors and theologians who judged that Scharlemann had not really changed from his former erring position, were justified in their judgment. Their Synod had cautioned them but they remained firm in the faith based on Holy Scripture.

What about Pres. Harrison?

      One wonders that Harrison may only have included this parenthetical remark because someone at CHI, perhaps Director Harmelink, informed him of the late culpability of Scharlemann and so he could not ignore it. Harrison surely cringed at reporting about Scharlemann and Sasse, because he appears to justify these theologians by stating they "could retain the dogmatic context of the faith without a strict doctrine of inerrancy". By this statement he gives an opening for other theologians to also deny inerrancy yet claim they too are "orthodox Lutherans". — Franz Pieper, while admitting Harrison's point, gave a stronger warning than Harrison. In his Christian Dogmatics I, pp. 178-179, fn 237 he states: "That the denial of the Inspiration, if consistency prevails, leads to denial also of the satisfactio vicaria [vicarious satisfaction]". That is a denial of the Christian faith. [See also this blog post] As Harrison's revelation shows, Siegbert Becker was the best judge of Scharlemann's actual teaching! [See Part 1, and this blog post from 2017.] 

      I was surprised that Harrison would be the one to report Scharlemann's letter to Hermann Sasse. But Concordia Historical Institute, in their "Historical Footnotes" essay (Summer 2011 to Summer 2012) on Scharlemann chose to title their series "Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann: A Faithful Servant". Perhaps author Zittlow was not aware of what Harrison revealed 13 years later in 2024. But what does that say about those who accept equivocal answers to critical doctrinal questions? And what does it say about Pres. Harrison himself when he chooses to justify both Sasse and Scharlemann as "orthodox Lutherans" who "could retain the dogmatic context of the faith", while stating that most other theologians could not?

      One may also wonder why Dr. Robert Preus and other members of the faculty did not take notice of Scharlemann's lingering error.

The Confessional Lutheran and the State of the Church publications:

      For anyone interested in getting the full story of the Scharlemann case, read through the pages of The Confessional Lutheran periodical. As Matthew Harrison reported (page 4): 

Beginning with the November 1959 issue, the Scharlemann controversy dominated the pages of an independent publication called The Confessional Lutheran until well after the Synod’s 1962 convention.

Author Mark Braun makes extensive use of this periodical which is now available on the Internet Archive for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962. —  Another independent detailed source available on the Internet Archive is the State of the Church (Missouri Synod), Book of Documentation series of publications for the years 1961 and 1962. — Both of these publications provide the reader with the background and documentation on the Walkout participants and their sympathizers.  Scharlemann's demise was well documented in these.

Seminary President Karl Barth (emeritus; † 2020)

      According to Barth in 1999, as reported by Mark Braun, "Scharlemann had renounced these views later in his life". While one may charitably assume that that was true, even after 1975 where he privately admitted that he had not changed, there is no public record of his change of heart, certainly not in his many writings that I have read. Franz Pieper judged Delitzsch the same way that Barth judged Scharlemann, calling his denial of Inspiration a "felicitous inconsistency" (Christian Dogmatics I, p. 178). I would tend to "charitably assume" the same of Scharlemann after reviewing the book The Making of a Theologian: Selected Works of Martin H. Scharlemann.  — But could it be that even the LC-MS's Karl Barth was weak on discerning the remaining error in Scharlemann? CHI writer Todd Zittlow's final remark still stands:

“Will the real Martin Scharlemann please stand up.”

That rhetorical question was a strike for honesty by writer Zittlow as he admitted the obvious. — 

      The sad reality was that the same Concordia Seminary Board of Control that acted against the Walkout faculty looked favorably on Prof. Martin H. Scharlemann after he had been given a period of rest after the Walkout. Klann reported in the above mentioned Concordia Journal article on Scharlemann that "His former status as graduate professor of New Testament exegesis was returned to him." This was done because it was in part "necessary to oppose" a "biblicistic" "principle of interpretation". In other words, the LC–MS never fully returned to its former glory notwithstanding the influence of the two Preus brothers, Robert and J. A. O.. One could use Zittlow's remark to say the following:

“Will the real LC–MS please stand up.”

To borrow Harrison's phrase, isn't the LC–MS actually an "otherwise orthodox" church body? 

Scharlemann on inerrancy: new information (Part 1 of 2)

      In March of this year, I blogged about how an essay by the well-respected theologian Raymond Surburg unfortunately did not notice how the 1975 LC–MS Christian Cyclopedia, in the "Hermeneutics" entry rewritten by Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann (1910-1982), had omitted reference to an inerrant Bible as previous editions had done. Much controversy surrounded Scharlemann and his early essays against Holy Scripture. But it seems the LC–MS never fully returned to its former glory in its teaching on this subject. In fact, after the Walkout of 1974, whenever LC–MS historians refer to Scharlemann's 1962 "withdrawal" at the 1962 Synod convention, they speak of it as if that had settled the matter. 

    The Scharlemann case was documented by Wisconsin Synod historian Prof. Mark Braun in his 2003 NPH book A Tale Of Two Synods. On pages 309-310, he records the following (bolding is mine):

Scharlemann “withdrew” his essays at Missouri’s 1962 conven­tion, apologizing for the disruption he had caused throughout the synod during the previous three years. (#105) The convention’s delegates assured Scharlemann of their forgiveness and resolved to demonstrate their forgiveness by prayers, encouragement, and “the request that [Missouri] members refrain from attacks upon him on the basis of [his] essays.” (#106) A dozen years later [1974], Scharle­mann was among the five professors who remained when most faculty and students walked off Concordia’s campus in 1974. (#107)

• 105) Many in the Missouri and Wisconsin synods, however, doubted that the with­drawal of Scharlemann’s essay resolved the issues his studies raised and won­dered whether Scharlemann in fact ever changed his views. 
• 106) Missouri Proceedings, 1962, 106-7. “Doctrinal Matters,” LW [Lutheran Witness], 81 (July 10, 1962), 334-5.
• 107) At a presentation of the highlights of this dissertation at Wisconsin Lutheran Col­lege, Milwaukee, March 22, 1999, after the author [Mark Braun] made a brief reference to the Scharlemann papers, a member of the audience rose to defend Scharlemann, saying that Scharlemann had renounced these views later in his life, and that he—the speaker—while president of Concordia Seminary, had even ministered to Scharle­mann on his deathbed in 1981. The speaker was Karl Barth, former South Wiscon­sin District President and Concordia president. Siegbert Becker, however, who opposed Scharlemann’s views at the 1959 Chicago meeting and for whom the Scharlemann papers occasioned the most traumatic decision in his ministerial career, remained unconvinced that Scharlemann had undergone a change of heart. Becker used to remark, “To the end of his life, Scharlemann was a charlatan.”

This case was also reported in Concordia Historical Institute's Summer 2012 "Historical Footnotes", p. 6 (bolding is mine):

These papers were strongly critiqued and a large groundswell of opposition developed. By the 1962 convention in Cleveland moves were made to remove Dr. Scharlemann from the faculty of Concordia Seminary. In response, Scharlemann agreed to officially withdraw his essays and apologized to the Synod in convention for the controversy and discord he had caused. The delegates responded by overwhelmingly passing a resolution accepting his apology and assuring him of forgiveness.

One may note the Synod's acceptance of Scharlemann's "withdrawal" from his controversial essays, while Scharlemann himself did not retract his essays. It seems the Synod did not care, and actually warned against continuing to defend against Scharlemann! Everyone was practically forced to accept Scharlemann's equivocal "withdrawal".

      But even the CHI writer, Todd Zittlow, admitted the strange situation of Scharlemann's own teaching (page 7):

But questions remain. How does one make sense of Scharlemann’s apparent move from moderate progressive theologian to conservative defender? … Perhaps some of these questions can be answered by a thorough study of his personal papers. Perhaps a researcher will be able to speak with some clarity and insight when the statement is made, “Will the real Martin Scharlemann please stand up.”

Well, last year President Matthew Harrison reported on the result of what was evidently a more "thorough study of his [Scharlemann's] personal papers". We will report on the results of that in the concluding Part 2.

"You are the only person I know…"

      A little over 9 years ago, I received correspondence from a Lutheran pastor on a certain topic. It was then discovered that he was from the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) and so it is no surprise that he was not entirely in agreement with certain points of my blog. But then he surprised me by stating the following:

“You are the only person I know who studies extensively all of Old Missouri theological history…”.

This ELCA pastor had some knowledge of what was going on in the "Missouri Synod" of today, what the narrative in the Synod was. And he confirmed for me what I had largely concluded in my return to my Lutheran Christian faith, that Walther and Pieper, and the writings of the old Missouri Synod, were most certainly not held in high regard by many, if not most, in that Synod. 

      I wish that the judgment of this pastor was not actually true, and indeed I am aware of some Lutherans around the world who recognize the greatness of the fathers of the Missouri Synod in the Lutheran Church. But when I see LC–MS writers and theologians bypass these fathers, and go back to the likes of Luther, Chemnitz and the earliest Lutheran theologians, I know that they don't really know Luther. That is why I named my blog

“Back To Luther”,

because I found Luther first in the writings of C. F. W. Walther and Franz Pieper.

(We will hear a surprising testimony on this from an LC-MS author/pastor/theologian in an upcoming blog post.)

L11–IV. 2, 3. Proper distinction of Law from Gospel

      This concludes from Part L10 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses two more points on the relationship of the preaching of the law to that of justification through faith. It is a wonderful sight to see these two speak on this all important subject. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 374 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

IV. What is the relationship between the preaching of the law and the preaching of justification through faith?

      2. Justification itself may be taught from the gospel alone, and therefore the preaching of the law is to be entirely excluded from it.

What Luther says on the preaching of the law in relation to justification:

• “The law is not only unnecessary for man to be justified by it, but quite useless and impossible in all things. But those who hold the law in the opinion that they want to be justified by it, to them the law also becomes a poison and pestilence to righteousness.”
• “In sum, as high as heaven is above the earth, so far should the law be separated from justification; and nothing should be taught, said, or remembered in the article concerning justification, but only the word of grace.”

Walther concludes with a caution on the limits of the Law:

      3. The law must not be preached to the justified as such in order to make them pious and fruitful in good works, and it must therefore not be imposed on the new man, but only on the old man; just as the holy apostle Paul calls out to the Galatians, who had again placed themselves under the yoke of the law: "I want to learn this from you alone: Did you receive the Spirit through the works of the law, or through the preaching of faith?" (Gal 3:2)

What Luther says on the limits of the Law:

• “The Gospel, where it is right in the heart, should make such a person who does not wait so long for the law to come, but is so full of joy in Christ, has a desire and love for good, that he gladly helps and benefits everyone where he can, out of a free heart, before he even thinks of the law, dares to risk his body and life, not asking anything about what it suffers, and thus becomes full of good works that flow from himself.”
• “So Moses [the Lawgiver] is to do his work apart from Christ, that he may drive those who are not Christians or who are ever the old man. For he does not thereby make Christians pious or righteous; but he does so by showing them what their office is, that they may gladly do according to the Spirit”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      It is this last Section IV that sets Walther's theology above modern LC–MS theologians and pastors, ones who think they can judge Walther, like Prof. Henry Eggold (see Parts L09a, L10). It was Walther who brought Luther's counsel on the "Misuse and Proper Use of the Law" (see the sermons in Am. Ed. vol. 56, pp. 92 ff.) to America, in his book The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (or Law & Gospel). May this series presenting his instruction and counsel aid the reader as it has me. Amen!

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

      In the following English translation, all Luther quotes have been linked directly to their source in the St. Louis Edition, American Edition (where possible), and, in the case of Church Postils, to Lenker's edition. Of course all St. Louis and Lenker edition materials are available without restriction for immediate viewing. Many weeks, days, and hours have been spent looking up and providing these links so that readers, like me, may be able to study Luther's writings further. One can never learn too much on this subject, and one cannot have better teachers than C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther:

Web version here; download file here; German version here.

L10–IV. 1. Law precedes justification through faith; Eggold's 2nd criticism of Walther

[2025-08-18: added note at bottom in red.]

      This continues from Part L09a (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther gets to the heart of the matter that makes him, and Luther, stand out: how to properly use the Law in relation to the Gospel.  — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 370 ff.: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

IV. What is the relationship between the preaching of the law and the preaching of justification through faith?

      1. The preaching of justification through faith must be preceded by the preaching of repentance from the law, as it is written: "Thus it is written, and thus Christ must suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and cause repentance and remission of sins to be preached in his name among all nations, and be raised up in Jerusalem." Luke 24:47.

What Luther says on the preaching of the law in relation to justification:

• “They have invented a new method for them, that grace should be preached first, then the revelation of wrath, so that the word "law" may not be heard or spoken.… But they do not see how St. Paul teaches in a contrary way, first showing the wrath of God from heaven and making all the world sinners and guilty before God; then, when they have become sinners, he teaches them how to obtain grace and become righteous… But they turn the shoe around and teach us the law according to the gospel and wrath according to grace.”
• “Those who are stubborn, stiff-necked and secure should be frightened with examples of God's wrath, so that, as is said here, they may learn to fear God. But now our hearts are inclined not to like to be chastened. We all accept the promises with joy and do not resent them. But the preaching of the law frightens people and makes them, as it were, fierce and angry.”
• “But the Antinomians would have it that the doctrine of repentance should begin badly with grace; but I did not follow this process. … [I] comforted no one except those who had previously repented and suffered for their sins and had themselves been tormented by them, whom the law had frightened”

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

    In Prof. Henry Eggold's ThD dissertation "Walther, the Preacher", beyond his judgment that Walther exhibited Pietism in his preaching (Part L09a), he also disagreed with Walther's strong preaching of the Law. After he quotes Walther's statement that "Hypocrites even today still cling to every Christian congregation" (Licht des Lebens, p. 297), Eggold states:

"This is an extremely important assertion of Walther's because it reveals quite clearly the attitude Walther takes toward his own congregation. Only on the basis of the statement can one understand why he applies his sermons quite consistently to the unbelievers as well as to the believers in his audience. …. I feel that his statement is too broad. I would prefer to say that there are certainly hypocrites in every congregation where Law and Gospel are not preached properly and where church discipline is neglected. But I do not feel that there is warrant for categorically assum­ing that there are hypocrites in every congregation."

Now "Eggold, the Preacher" would surely consider that his sermons properly preached Law and Gospel, and that his church discipline was not neglected. But did it not occur to Prof. Eggold that he is in essence charging Walther with not properly preaching Law and Gospel and also with neglecting church discipline. Perhaps it did not occur to Prof. Eggold the lesson of the parable of the tares among the wheat (Matt. 13:24-30) Perhaps it did not occur to Prof. Eggold that even Jesus's own preaching did not convert all who listened to his preaching. All of Eggold's seeming praise of Walther's preaching elsewhere is tainted by his criticisms. Walther is Old Missouri, Eggold is New Missouri and was at one time the head of Concordia Theological Seminary. — In the concluding Part L11…

========

2025-08-18: It should be noted that Pastor Klemet Preus († 2014) also criticized Eggold's homiletical style as driving a "wedge between fact and empowerment". This was done in Preus's essay "The Sermon As Absolution" in the book Propter Christum: Christ at the center: essays in honor of Daniel Preus, 2013 Luther Academy, p. 291. Preus also included Walkout Prof. Richard Caemmerer in his charge.

L09a–False charges by LCMS: Walther a Pietist? (Eggold–Piepkorn–Pelikan); Wohlrabe, McCain defend Walther

      This continues from Part L09 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — A preposterous charge by LCMS theologians against Walther prompted this Excursus. A refreshing rebuttal was made by more recent LCMS men.

Jaroslav Pelikan     —     A. C. Piepkorn      —     Henry Eggold     
“Walther, a Pietist”

    The matter taken up in Walther's statement #3 in Part L09 causes many of today's LCMS theologians to stumble, for they are weak on both Law and Gospel preaching. They are weak on the proper distinction of these two doctrines. Concordia Seminary Doctoral candidate Henry Eggold Jr. († 1982), in his 1962 doctoral thesis [Internet Archive], said this about Walther's preaching of the Law, p. 178:

“One of the very strong accents in Walther's preaching is his rebuking of prevailing sins. As one reads a number of his sermons at one sitting, he finds that Walther spends almost as much time denouncing a false faith as he does pleading for a true faith. When he is rebuking sin, he is in dead earnest [as if God is not?]; he preaches the Law as though there were no Gospel and pictures God in the awesomeness of his justice and righteousness. His language is vigorous, blunt, and unsparing.”

Also in this essay, one discovers that Eggold references two of the leading lights of the 1974 Walkout: Drs. Jaroslav Pelikan and Arthur Carl Piepkorn. It was Pelikan who started the myth that Walther synthesized Orthodoxy with Pietism, in an article for a German theological journal in 1952 (see here, footnote #4; full text file). Then in 1961, Piepkorn referenced Pelikan's essay in an article for Concordia Theological Monthly, "Walther and the Lutheran Symbols" (see here, p. 609, footnote #17). A year later, in 1962, Eggold came out with his semi-famous doctoral thesis that referenced both of these "leading lights" as the marching orders for his work. But in reading all of Eggold's comments and judgments of Walther, it became apparent that he himself is weak on preaching the Law in comparison with Walther. Yet he proposes to judge Walther by stating (p. 255) that 

“A critical appraisal of Walther's sermons will not close one's eyes to the influence of Pietism which introduced faults into Walther's preaching, namely, his tinge of legalism and his occasional advice to the terrified sinner to prayer for grace without directing him to the Gospel.”

That Walther was under "the influence of Pietism" is quite preposterous. Even Rev. Dr. John C. Wohlrabe Jr., LCMS Sixth Vice-President, admitted that Eggold's assertion of Walther's "Pietism" was questionable, stating: 

"Yet, when one carefully considers the doctrine of the church, as set forth in Walther’s other writings, as well as in his sermons, one can’t help but question this assertion. Did Walther’s addressing himself to unbelievers in his sermons come from a pietistic influence or from his doctrine of the church, which was soundly based on Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and such orthodox Lutheran theologians as John Gerhard?" ("The Preaching of C. F. W. Walther in View of the Doctrine of the Church", The Pieper Lectures - Preaching Through the Ages, Volume 8 (2004), p. 90)

Wohlrabe goes on to demonstrate how Eggold was wrong, that an apparent inconsistency in Walther's writings was only apparent. Even more, he asks the question (p. 91) "why has this practice [addressing unbelievers in a sermon] all but disappeared in modern preaching?" Finally, (p. 95) he states that Walther's preaching put the "stress on objectivity over subjectivity—or put another way, orthodoxy over against pietism." — 

    Also Paul McCain, in a 1998 essay, wrote about Pietism and stated that "The first leaders of the Missouri Synod had to struggle against Pietism in their own lives and it has been so ever since." In a footnote to this, without naming Eggold, Piepkorn or Pelikan, said this (p. 86):

“It is inaccurate to describe C. F. W. Walther as a Pietist. Anyone who makes this assertion knows little about Walther and even less about Pietism.” (The Pieper Lectures - Pietism and Lutheranism, Volume 3, p. 92)

      Eggold's charge is the same as what Franz Pieper reported of Missouri's opponents who charged them with, among other things, being "Pietists". As Pieper explains in his Christian Dogmatics, Pietism is the tendency to turn Lutheranism towards Reformed territory, and Walther is far from doing that. It seems that Prof. Eggold swallowed the false theology of Jaroslav Pelikan. — And we notice why Eggold was weak as a theologian and a preacher: He was advised by the likes of Profs. Richard Caemmerer, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Erwin L. Lueker, the Walkout sympathizers of 1974. His agenda in producing his thesis was prescribed by Prof. Pelikan (who later left Lutheranism), which was to prove that Walther's preaching was a "synthesis of Orthodoxy and Pietism". Eggold's own homiletical philosophy, "Preaching is Dialogue", was possibly influenced by Prof. Caemmerer's homiletics. Prof. Eggold never changed his judgment of Walther as he repeated these same charges of "Pietism" in his "Translators Preface" to the CPH book Selected Sermons of Walther published in 1981, the year before he died. Sad. 

      The latter charge above by Prof. Eggold, Walther's statement "to pray for grace", can be answered by the Fifth Petition of the Lord's Prayer, which petitions the Lord to "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". Eggold could also charge our Lord Jesus with the same charge of "not directing the terrified sinner to the Gospel". Eggold should have studied Luther's explanation of the Fifth Petition. — He should also have listened to the Savior when He said Luke 13:3, 5: 

"I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

Eggold brings another charge against Walther that we report in the next Part L10…

L09–III. 2., 3. Law shows our sin, even for true Christians

      This continues from Part L08 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses two more reasons why the Law must be preached. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 364 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

III. Why must the Law also be proclaimed in the New Testament and also to Christians?

      2. The second reason why the Law must also be preached in the New Testament is that only those who recognize their sins can come to faith in Christ and to knowledge of his reconciling and redeeming work and suffering; but knowledge of sin comes through the Law alone.

What Luther says on the preaching of the Law to show our sins:

• “If a person is to become spiritual and come to faith, he must first be under the Law; therefore, without the Law no one recognizes himself for what he lacks; but he who does not know himself does not seek grace. But when the Law comes, it demands so much that man feels and must confess that he is not able to fulfill it; he must then despair of himself and, humbled, sigh for God's grace.”
• “For who can know what Christ suffered for us and why, if no one knows what sin or Law is? Therefore the Law must be preached where Christ is to be preached.”

Walther continues:

      3. Finally, the Law must also be preached to those who have already become true Christians, for the reason that even the believing, enlightened, born-again Christian, who is of course willing to do all good, is not yet completely enlightened and renewed, but has the old Adam, that is, flesh and blood, and therefore still needs the teaching of the Law, even terror and compulsion; as we see then that the law is also preached to Christians through the whole of Holy Scripture.

What Luther says about preaching the law to true Christians:

• “But the matter itself and experience testify that even the righteous or faithful are subjected and delivered to death daily. Therefore, as far as they are under death, they must also be under the Law and sin. It is especially coarse and inexperienced people and harmful deceivers of consciences who want to take the Law away from the church.”
• “Therefore the Law (as well as the gospel) must be preached without distinction, both to the righteous, or believers, and to the ungodly; … to the godly, that they may be reminded thereby to crucify and mortify their flesh, together with lusts and vices, so that they may not be secure, Gal. 5:24, for security takes away both faith and the fear of God, and makes the latter worse than the former was.”
• “But outwardly the flesh does not yet want to do so; all kinds of filth and evil lust, anxiety for food, fear of death, avarice, anger and hatred still cling to it: the filth always remains next to the faith that it may beat and fight with it.”
• “So divide a Christian into two parts: That he is both righteous and unrighteous. The Holy Spirit dwells in the heart, but not in the flesh, where the devil dwells with his seed”

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

In the next Part L10, Walther addresses the point that makes him and Luther the perfect teachers to follow on the preaching of the Law. But first, in the next Part L09a, we call out past LCMS theologians who crassly criticized Walther… on his Pietism?

L08–III. 1. Law, the unchangeable will of God, indelibly written in the heart of every man

      This continues from Part L07 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses the first of three reasons on why the preaching of the Law is also important in the New Testament. — Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 362 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

III. Why must the Law also be proclaimed in the New Testament and also to Christians?

      1. Because the law contains the unchangeable will of God, indelibly written in the heart of every human being, as the eternal, irrevocable and unchanging guideline for all beings created for the knowledge and fellowship of God, as Christ expressly says: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5:17-19.

What Luther says about the law "as the eternal, irrevocable and unchanging guideline":

• “Whoever does away with the Law must also do away with sin. If he wants to let sin stand, he must rather let the Law stand. For (Romans 5:13) where there is no law, there is no sin: if there is no sin, Christ is nothing. For why, if there is neither law nor sin, does he die for it?”
• “But he [the devil] proceeds to make people secure, and teaches them to have no regard for either the law or sin, so that if they should suddenly be overtaken with death or an evil conscience, having previously been accustomed to sweet assurance, they might sink to hell without any counsel, as if they had been taught nothing but sweet assurance in Christ”

Walther comments: 

• “With the latter words Luther obviously wants to say that whoever knows what the law is and that it still proves its power will not despair even in the felt terror of conscience, for he will turn from the law to the Gospel, where he will find what the law demands. But if one thinks that the law has been taken away and yet is assailed by the terror of conscience, there is no help, counsel or consolation available.”

Furthermore, Luther says:

• “Whoever does away with the Law must also do away with sin.”
• “For Christ has freed us from the curse, not from the obedience of the law. … Therefore see to it that you rightly distinguish between the two words and do not give more to the law than is due to it; otherwise you will deny the gospel.”
• “Therefore the law will never be abolished in eternity, but remains either to be fulfilled in the damned or fulfilled in the saved.”

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

These lessons on the Law were quite instructive for me, not only as a review of my past training, but also on what aspects still surprised me. — In the next Part L09…

L07–II. 3. Love is the master of all commandments

      This continues from Part L06 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses the second of two misconceptions of the "Golden Rule": "love your neighbor as yourself". — Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 357 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

II. What is the proper understanding of these words: You shall love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself?

      3. Finally, to the proper understanding of the word "love your neighbor as yourself," which is rare even in our day, belongs this, that the commandment to love one's neighbor is the greatest and noblest next to the commandment to love God, and therefore love is the master of all commandments and the standard of their fulfillment, as Scripture (Rom. 13:8-10) expressly calls love the law, and indeed according to Gal. 5:14, the fulfillment of all laws.

What Luther says on love as the master of all commandments:

• “So that they must all give way and never be law, nor be valid where love is concerned. We read many examples of this in Scripture, and especially Christ himself shows Matt. 12:3-5, how David ate the holy shewbread with his companions. For although there was a law that no one should eat such holy bread except the priests alone, yet here love was a free empress over the same law”
• “All kinds of laws should therefore be given, ordained, and kept, not for their own sake, nor for the sake of works, but only for the exercise of love”
• “Christ also confirms this in Matt. 12:7, where he prefers mercy to all commandments and laws”
• “If the law is contrary to love, it ceases and should no longer be a law. But where there is no hindrance, the keeping of the law is an indication of the love that lies hidden in the heart. For this is why laws are needed, so that love may be demonstrated by them; but if they cannot be kept without harming one's neighbor, God wants them to be abolished and taken away”

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

In the next Part L08…

L06–II. 2. The Golden Rule: misconception #2; Communism?

      This continues from Part L05 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses the second of two misconceptions of the "Golden Rule": "love your neighbor as yourself".  — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Nov. 1861), p. 339 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

II. What is the proper understanding of these words: You shall love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself?

      2. Another misconception… is that one believes one must draw the conclusion from it that it is therefore against the love of one's neighbor that I am rich or a master and let my neighbor remain poor or a servant. 

• “But this principle is just as troublesome and confusing to the conscience as it would, if it were carried out, overthrow all orders in the world. … absolute Communism would be the only right relation among men in regard to their goods. But the words: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’, have a completely different meaning.”
• “If, for example, my neighbor is poor and I am rich, I should act towards him as I would think fair, that he should act towards me if I myself were poor and my neighbor rich.”

What Luther says about this, that one should not harm oneself when loving one's neighbor:

• “Therefore, no one can tell you better than you yourself what to do, what not to do, what to say or what to wish for your neighbor.”
• “I understand the commandment to mean that it does not command us to love ourselves, but only to love our neighbor. First of all, because the love of self is first in all men and reigns supreme. Secondly, if God had wanted this order, he would have said thus: Love yourself, and then your neighbor as yourself. But now he says: Love your neighbor as yourself, that is, love him as you already love yourself without any commandment.”
• “Therefore you do not need a book to teach you how to love your neighbor. For you have in your heart the finest and best book, in which you will find described everything that all kinds of laws may teach you, and you need neither a doctor nor a teacher: just ask your own heart, and it will tell you that you should love your neighbor as yourself.”
• “Whatever you would have others do to you, do also; this is the law and all the prophets; indeed, all natural law also says this. Now it is certain that I would like people to give to me, to lend to me, to help me in my need. Again, it is certain that no one should give, lend, or help me where I have no need of it, am lazy, am a rogue, want to splurge, do not want to work…”

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

In the next Part L07…