JPK3: Pieper's "Use and Abuse of Analogy of Faith"

[2025-07-23: added reference at bottom.]

     This continues from Part JPK2 (Table of Contents in Part JPK1) in a series defending against the aberrant teachings of deposed Wisconsin Synod Prof. J. P. Koehler († 1951) of the Wisconsin Synod. — We move from Luther now to Pieper. What stirred up the "hornet's nest" by WELS Prof. J. P. Koehler's theology was the controversy regarding the Doctrine of Election between the Synodical Conference and other American Lutheran synods. A major Intersynodical "free conference" was held in September of 1903 in Milwaukee to discuss the issues. What became apparent during the meeting was that the reason for the controversy was a different approach to Holy Scripture. It had to do with something called "the analogy of the faith". After this meeting, Franz Pieper was forced to produce a "signature" essay giving masterful instruction on both the "analogy of the faith" and the Doctrine of Election to try to clear the matter up – if only the opposition would pay attention. The essay was serialized in Lehre und Wehre, volumes 49 (1903) and 50 (1904). The following are

Notable quotes:

Vol. 49 (1903) [EN]

321: "the question arose as to what the analogy of the faith is. … the “analogy of the faith” is not something subjective, …but something objective, namely, the clear statements of Scripture themselves".

322: "And before the doctrine of election could be discussed, a fundamental disagreement had already emerged among the participants in the assembly. … the great gulf that must be bridged if real and true agreement is to be achieved in these matters."

323: "The discussions about analogia fidei were not concluded."

323: "if something does not fit into the framework of the rational context, the theologian would be justified in reinterpreting or completely denying clear statements of Scripture." [i.e. abusing the "Analogy of Faith".]

324: "harmonious unity of Christian doctrine only as a unity in the sense of the divine revelation of Holy Scripture, not in the sense of human reason" [i.e. the proper use and the abuse of the Analogy]

324: "There is a right and a wrong use of the analogy of faith in the interpretation of Scripture."

324: "As church history teaches, the analogy of faith has been invoked to reject clear teachings of Scripture under a good appearance." [Nestorius, Zwingli, Reformed, Oecolampadius]

326: "Zwingli gives Luther the following extra lesson on the interpretation of Scripture [like J. P. Koehler]"

329: "…the analogy of unbelief, which does not want to submit to God's Word, but to be the master God's Word…"

354: "As soon as someone… is forced to distort clear words of Scripture, it is a sign that somewhere, or even in several places, he is not quite right."

Vol. 50 (1904) [EN]

21: "Our confession defines the rule of faith as 'clear Scripture.' Thus it says in the Apology: … should be interpreted or introduced according to the rule, that is, according to the clear Scripture, and not against the rule or Scripture". [(Triglotta p. 441, § 59-60)]

22: "We have a brief rule of faith in the Apostles' Creed. We have a somewhat more detailed rule of faith in Luther's Small Catechism." [Both outline "the faith" that is to be believed.]

24: Luther on Romans 12:6: 

“This is his (the apostle's) opinion: those who have the grace to interpret Scripture should see to it that they interpret it in such a way that it is in harmony with the faith [dem Glauben], and not against it, nor otherwise, than the faith [der Glaube] teaches” [St. L. ed. 12, 334 (not in Am. Ed.)]

27: 'The rightly used analogy of faith is not a guard for the Scriptures, but for the exegetes, who are inclined to insert their own thoughts into obscure passages, and sometimes even into clear passages of Scripture"

      It is to be noted that Pieper's associate, the noted exegete Prof. George Stoeckhardt, did not teach Romans 12:6 as an objective faith, but a subjective one., as reported by Koehler in History, p. 244, and in Stoeckhardt's Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Römer, p. 560-572 (See Stahlke's hand-written translation here, p. 420-429; Koehlinger p. 170-173.). However Koehler admitted that Stoeckhardt "did not contradict his colleague’s (Pieper's) statement about the analogy of faith." (History, p. 244).

     Now we present a greatly enhanced translation of Pieper's full essay spanning 3 issues of Lehre und Wehre. Many hyperlinks have been added, for navigation and for almost all references:

2025-05: Web version: here; the full document may be downloaded >> here <<. German text >> here <<.

      Prof. J. P. Koehler's teaching on Romans 12:6, as seen in the last Part JPK2, is in direct opposition to Martin Luther, now Franz Pieper and the Lutheran Confessions, and, as we will see in the next Part JPK4, the premier theologian of Lutheran orthodoxy, John Gerhard.

JPK2: Luther vs J. P. Koehler on Rom. 12:6, "analogy of faith"

     This continues from Part JPK1 (Table of Contents in Part JPK1) in a series defending against the aberrant teachings of deposed Wisconsin Synod Prof. J. P. Koehler († 1951) of the Wisconsin Synod. — Koehler's provocative charges against the Missouri Synod and Franz Pieper, can be answered by the Reformer, Martin Luther.  First, let us review again Koehler's main argument regarding Romans 12:6 and his defense of it from his History of the Wisconsin Synod book, p. 212 [comments in red]: 

J. P. Koehler: subjective faith (Rom. 12:6) (p. 212): 

"The proper interpretation of the misapplied Scripture text [by the Missourians] became imperative, and Koehler [Koehler writes of himself in the third person], who had not taken part in the discussions, applied himself to the task, with the result of the article in the first number of the Quartalschrift under the head of “The Analogy of Faith.” His finding was that the Apostle is not stating a technical principle of hermeneutics in Rom.12:6 but saying that in the matter of the gift of ‘prophecy’ such prophesying should be according to the proportion of faith (as it is translated quite aptly in the English Bible); in other words, those in the early church endowed with this particular gift should confine themselves in their prophesying’, its content, scope, and exercise, to the measure or degree of faith with which they were endowed, [i.e. subjective faith] by virtue of which they could exercise such gift thru the Spirit; they should not try to go into higher flights of their own (cf. v3)."

That is subjectivism. Koehler immediately admits that Dr. Hoenecke, his superior, called his attention to the fact that "the article was in conflict with the practically unanimous opinion of the dogmaticians regarding the use of two vital concepts of the Scriptures: pistis (faith) and charis (grace)." Koehler admits that his

"article contended that ‘faith’ [in Rom. 12:6] is used subjectively only of the Christian’s inner attitude".

Koehler admits to his own "private interpretation" ("contended") which is warned against in 2 Peter 1:20. 

      More than the later dogmaticians, Koehler's contention is directly opposed to Martin Luther's repeated teaching on Rom. 12:6. 

 

Martin Luther: objective faith

• LW 1, 354: "This interpretation is in accordance with the faith (Rom. 12:6) and confirms the hope of resurrection and of eternal life."
• LW 2, 151: "…the rule of Paul, who enjoins in Rom. 12:6 that prophecy or doctrine should be conformable to the faith."
• LW 6, 131: "…not all of them are to be believed, but only if they are of the analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6). I shall cling to the Word of God and be content with that."
• LW 7, 118: "But here the analogy ends, not of faith (cf. Rom. 12:6) but of things".
• LW 9, 25: "This is done when, according to the injunction of Rom. 12:6, prophecy is according to the analogy of faith…"
• LW 22, 105: "'You hear that God did not become an angel but a man like you, and you just stand there like a stick of wood!' Whether this story is true or not, it is nevertheless in accordance with the faith (Rom. 12:6).".
• LW 34, 96: "We will cleave to this rule which St. Paul teaches us, Romans in the twelfth chapter [:6], 'All prophecy shall be similar to faith.' Those teachers who teach what conforms to the faith in Christ, them we will teach and hold to; any teacher, however, who does not teach what conforms to the faith, him we will neither hear nor see"
• LW 36, 195: "Nothing is to transpire or be done unless it is certain that God is the author and doer of it. [i.e. objective] This is what Paul intends in Rom. 12 [:6] — 'If any one has the gift of prophecy, let him prophesy in accordance with the faith…'"
• LW 37, 261-262, the powerful words of Luther defending the Real Prescence: "For all the words of Christ must … be in accord with faith, Romans 12 [:6]."
• LW 51, 378: "If an idea occurs to you, I would not throw it out altogether, but let it have some value. But go easy; St. Paul says, 'in proportion' [Rom. 12:6]; don’t be misled by it. How can I know, then, how far? Paul answers, 'in proportion to our faith', that is, as far as it is in accord with faith"

It was an instructive experience for me as I gathered the quotes from Luther — they pointed to an objective faith, not a subjective faith such as Koehler teaches with his "measure or degree of faith with which they were endowed". Our objective faith is not founded within, it is based on the objective Word, a Word that no one can change or take away. — A good follow up to this controversy would be to read Franz Pieper's extensive essay “Use and Abuse of the Analogy of Faith” in Lehre und Wehre in English, volumes 49 (1903, p. 321 ff.) and 50 (1904, p. 20 ff). I will present that evidence of Lutherans against the teaching of Prof. Koehler, in the next Part JPK3.

JPK1: Koehler not true exegete, not a Stoeckhardt; protest to WELS; Pless counters Prange

Prof. J. P. Koehler
Better than Stoeckhardt?
Why deposed?

 

Pastor Peter Prange: 
Out with Old Syn. Conf.
In with New "Exegesis"

    This blog post was provoked during my research of George Stoeckhardt and his Exegetical Theology. It is a protest to today's Wisconsin Synod (WELS).  I am lodging a protest against your Pastor Peter M. Prange who is a member of the WELS Commission on Inter-Church Relations (CICR) and was also a member of the committee that produced the Christian Worship: Supplement  (according to current info here.) 

      What is my protest?  It is the same as the formal protest reportedly issued by the St. Louis faculty and submitted by Prof. George Stoeckhardt against the new theology promoted by your Prof. John Philipp Koehler. 

This formal St. Louis protest was reported by Koehler himself in his History of the Wisconsin Synod (HWS; WHI; Internet Archive 2024) , p. 212. I have blogged about Koehler in 2017, and this post expands on that by bringing it into today's Wisconsin Synod.
      Most WELS church historians, and many outside the WELS today, make extensive use of Koehler's HWS book. (It should be noted that there is an extensive "Introduction" by Koehler follower Prof. Leigh Jordahl of Gettysburg Lutheran Theological Seminary).  It has been called "the standard reference for the early history of the Wisconsin Synod" by the WELS Historical Institute.  It should be mentioned that it was not made available from WELS publisher NPH, but only through those who followed Koehler and separated from the WELS, the "Protes'tant Conference", which may no longer have congregations. Its periodical "Faith-Life" appears be be discontinued.  While the historical works of WELS Profs. Mark Braun, Armin Schuetze and E. C. Friedrich make substantial use of HWS, they offer practically no correction to Koehler's weaknesses and errors (he was deposed from his professorship in 1929).  This leads their readers to sympathize with Koehler, and wonder: "Why was Koehler deposed from his post as professor?"

      Again, Koehler was the leader of this "new exegesis" movement. What he came to promote was actually an attack on much of what the Missouri Synod and the Synodical Conference stood for, an objective faith.  The field of "Exegesis", according to Koehler, was supposed to breathe a new vigor into the life of a supposed "spiritless" orthodoxy, a "dead formalism" as one follower called it.  The notion was raised that the process of "exegesis" was sorely lacking, that new efforts were needed to understand the Bible, as if the Church was adrift in uncertainty.  Much has been written about Koehler and why he was deposed as professor by the Wisconsin Synod – search "Koehler" at essays.wls.edu:8080/ (Edward Fredrich's essay is perhaps the best.).  But the notion of the primacy of "exegesis" still lives on among many Lutherans.  Although Koehler claimed some support from George Stoeckhardt (HWS, p. 212), yet he admits that it was Stoeckhardt who wrote the letters of formal protest (p. 212) against his "exegetical clarification", against his misuse of the term "analogy of faith".  Dear God!  as I read the works of the later Koehler and the followers of his weaknesses and errors, I needed an antidote and I found it in Franz Pieper's Christian Dogmatics books.  The Christian religion is not about always questioning what we believe (faith) but about being absolutely certain of it, about sustaining and defending it.  And especially those who followed after Koehler, the so-called Protes'tant Conference, show how dangerous a little leaven can leaventh the whole lump. (Gal. 5:9) It is a shame the that Wisconsin Synod's history and its so-called "Wauwatosa Theology" is so tied up with the book written by deposed Prof. J. Ph. Koehler!

A Tale of Two Synods, and A Fiction

Past. Peter M. Prange:
Stöckhardt speaks
“at the mind”,
not the heart?

      In case anyone doubts that some (most WELS theologians and teachers?) hold that J.P. Koehler taught a superior exegetical theology than Stoeckhardt, Pastor Peter M. Prange (now of Kenosha Lutheran Academy-Kenosha) said the following in his essay J.P. Koehler, The Exegetical Task at the 2006 Bethany Reformation Lectures (BLTS/LSQ 47-1, p. 45):

“The reader will instantly notice a marked difference [between Koehler and Stoeckhardt]. Stöckhardt has copious quotations from other exegetes; Koehler has practically none. Stöckhardt spends much more time on the fine points of grammar and syntax; Koehler deals much more with the interrelatedness of Paul’s thought and the application of its saving truths to our lives as Christians. Stöckhardt reads as if he’s delivering a lecture aimed principally at the mind; Koehler sounds like he’s delivering a sermon aimed principally at the heart.”

So, according to Pastor Prange, to get at the meaning of the Holy Spirit by His words, by "merely setting forth what is expressed in Scripture", is not aimed at man's heart? This assertion that Stoeckhardt's writing is directed "principally at the mind" and not at the heart is fiction. Stoeckhardt lets the Holy Spirit, through His words, "aim at the heart". But I will grant to Pastor Prange that Koehler "deals much more with … the application of its saving truths to our lives as Christians".  The actual case is that Koehler does not lay the foundation for the assurance, the absolute certainty of salvation for the Christian, as does… George Stoeckhardt. Prange (in his 2006 essay) and Koehler promote "A Call to Reinvigorate the Science of Biblical Hermeneutics", a new "exegesis". I am unable to distinguish their distinctively new "exegesis", from eisegesis ("interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases"), or from the apostasy of Germany's renowned theologians.  It was exactly against this false notion of Prange and Koehler that I had to fight for my soul's salvation against Larry Darby and his attack on UOJ. — (Note: The Steadfast Press book Grace upon Grace of Stoeckhardt sermons recently published is at an unbelievably low price of $12.50 –paperback.)

 

Prof. Joel L. Pless:
“Stöckhardt was
confessional,
orthodox,
thoroughly Lutheran”

A Stark Contrast...

      To counter Prange's attack on Stoeckhardt, in the same 2006 lectures, WELS Prof. Joel L. Pless said of Stoeckhardt's exegesis:

• p. 13: Stoeckhardt’s view and understanding of the Holy Scriptures can be readily understood to be orthodox Lutheran ... Stoeckhardt’s view of Scripture is readily recognizable as confessional and orthodox Lutheran.
• p. 15: Stoeckhardt was truly a master exegete of both Testaments. ... his hermeneutical principles can be legitimately described as thoroughly Lutheran.
• p. 20: The main focus of his exegetical method is commenting on the doctrinal content of the verses, with often brief references to what other commentators have remarked on the meaning of the verse being studied, followed by Stoeckhardt’s often polemical rejoinders. Stoeckhardt then often supplied a brief application of the verse at hand.
• p. 22: Stoeckhardt’s method was continually guided by a burning desire to make the text of Scripture plain.

Prof. Pless wonderfully counters Prange.  These statements by Prof. Pless on Stoeckhardt's exegesis is in stark contrast to that of Pastor Prange.  The contrast is no small matter.  If Pless is correct that Stoeckhardt's exegesis was "thoroughly", "confessional and orthodox" Lutheran, then Stoeckhardt taught the absolute certainty of salvation, no doubts whatsoever.  But if Koehler's exegesis truly shows "a marked difference", then just what did Koehler teach? (Hint: "the application to our lives as Christians, i.e. "Faith-Life")  —

      And What Would Luther Say? about the emphasis on the application of the Bible to "our lives as Christians" à la Koehler, Prange, "Protes'tant Conference", etc.?  Martin Luther said:

“Doctrine is heaven, life is earth”
            Objective        <—>     Subjective
             Stoeckhardt      <—>     J. P. Koehler

So much for the fiction of Koehler's "exegesis" over Stoeckhardt!   Nonsense!  I reject all the teachings of this "new exegesis" for it would mix its aberrations with the truth, thereby confusing the truth!  But, Dear God!, "Doctrine is Heaven, Life is Earth".  I am absolutely certain of my salvation, in part because Luther, Walther, Pieper, and Stoeckhardt and others in the Old Synodical Conference (including the Wisconsin Synod!) held my nose to the very words of Holy Scripture (objective!) and said: Believe this!  My life is nothing apart from believing 2 Cor. 5:19 — or the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification! – I will take from the Old Synodical Conference what Koehler claims for it: the "dogmatism", "rusty thinking", "closed minds to new insights", "no understanding of exegesis", no "clear conception of how to handle language"! (HWS pp. 212-213).

      Others are being brought to testify against Pastor Peter M. Prange and his dream of Koehler's exegetical supremacy. The first will be Martin Luther, to refute an exegesis of John Philipp Koehler on Koehler's primary Bible verse, Romans 12:6, regarding the "Analogy of Faith". That will come in the next Part JPK2. 

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Koehler 1: Doctrine & Life — Faith & Life (Luther); “coma” of Missourians (2017)

Part JPK1: Koehler not true exegete, not a Stoeckhardt; protest to WELS; 

Part JPK2: Luther vs. J. P. Koehler on Rom. 12:6, "analogy of faith"

Part JPK3: Pieper's "Use and Abuse of Analogy of Faith" (LuW essay, p. 321)

Part JPK4: John Gerhard On Interpreting (GDrv) §§ 75-78 , § 62, p. 76-77, 30. (Note: § 78 is directly against Prof. Joel Biermann. This series will be followed by one on a lecture by Prof. Biermann starting with JB01.)

Part JPK5: Koehler–dangerous path; Stöckhardt–”old paths”

Pieper as Theologian-5: The Church authority on Bible's Authority

      This continues from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting the full essay “Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian” by President Ludwig Fuerbringer. — In this portion, Pieper elaborates on “rule of faith” or the “Analogy of Faith”, the clarity of Scripture, and the reality for those who deny the authority of Holy Scripture. Pieper's message never wavered whether it was in front of Walther while he lived or in 1892, or in 1899 or in 1906 or in 1922 or... in 1932 in what became the Brief Statement.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Translation by BackToLuther. Original publication in CTM, vol. 2, October, 1931 (Part 1, p. 721-729); underlining follows original emphasis, comments in [ ] brackets, and all hyperlinks and highlighting are mine.

Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian.

by Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer

(Part 5, cont'd from Part 4)

1.

“Holy Scripture, like every other writing, is to be interpreted or not interpreted only by itself.

2.

“When we say that Scripture is interpreted according to faith (according to the analogy of faith), so we thereby mean it to be, as with the proper teachers, nothing other than that Scripture is limited only by itself, namely, dark passages of Scripture are only to be explained by the clear passages of the same Scripture. Interpretation of Scripture in accordance with a norm that is not Scripture itself (tradition, consensus of the Church, “spirit,” “enlightened reason,” “whole of Scripture,” etc.) is not interpretation, but criticism of Scripture. [Page 728]

3.

“The objection, that it is not possible to decide with certainty which Scriptural passages are clear, is to be answered: Clarity is always its own proof, or: Scripture passages themselves work the conviction that they are clear, by their clarity.  Clearly, with regard to the individual doctrines, the passages in which these teachings are revealed (sedes doctrinae) are not the places in which they are not revealed. Those who want to explain clear Scripture passages through other passages of Scripture, mock the Scriptures and throw the whole Scripture into an “uncertain pile”. (Luther.)

4.

“Church history teaches that the false teachers of all times interpreted clear passages of Scripture as obscure, pointing to their heads, and in order to deceive others and themselves, invoked the “analogy of faith.”

5.

“The fact that Scripture is interpreted only by Scripture and does not correspond to one’s own thoughts is a grace that continually is sought of God, and is given to the broken hearts which renounce all their own wisdom in divine things and submit their sense of Scripture in humble faith”. (52, 481 f.)

And finally, Pieper always came back to the last, all-important question, the reason of certainty, the certainty of truth. Then he published his excellent inaugural speech of 1899: “How Does a Teacher of the Church Obtain the True Assurance of Christian Doctrine?” (46, 161); German tite) and at other times raises the question: “Why Do We Believe the Scriptures?” or: “How does the Holy Scripture Become a Divine Authority?” (68, 161; German title). And his answer to this all-surpassing certainty question is this:

“By the divine authority of the Holy Scripture we understand the quality or nature of Scripture, according to which it bids faith and obedience to everything it says, as to God himself.

Whoever attacks the authority of Scripture commits a crime against the Divine majesty, a crimen laesae majestatis divinae, because he actually repudiates and stands above God. As Scripture proof of this belongs all Scripture passages in which the Word of Scripture and the Word of God are identified ....

And this divine authority of Scripture is an absolute. It is an absolute in the sense that it belongs to Scripture for its own sake, because it is God’s Word through inspiration. Not because the authority is based on the testimony given by individuals or even the whole Church to Scripture, which the ancient Lutheran theologians express briefly rightly so: The Scripture is  αύτόπιστος [autopistos, credible in itself], that is, it is entitled to faith and obedience for its own sake, because it is θεόπνευστος, given by God. [2 Tim. 3:16 = “God-breathed” or “God-inspired”] [Page 729]

The divine authority of Scripture is denied by Rome by asserting that Scripture has divine authority only through the witness of the Church. The fact that the Scripture accords for its own sake with faith and obedience, is denied  moreover by the Enthusiasts of all times, which concede the Scripture as divine authority only insofar as the Scripture is voiced with the alleged immediate spiritual revelation.  The same critical position on Scripture is finally adopted by all the later theologians, who deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, who want to decide about truth and error in Scripture according to their “faith-consciousness,” “experience,”  etc. They therefore speak also with the Enthusiasts of “bondage to letters,” a “paper pope” etc. if they are expected to recognize the Holy Scriptures as inviolable [unverbrüchliche; unbreakable, John 10:35] divine authority. [or “ancient believing text-worshipers”; ref. McLaughlin's essay]

“Now, however, the question arises as to how the divinity of Scripture is recognized by us human beings or, what is the same, how Scripture becomes divine authority for us humans. In answering this question, we have to choose between Christian certainty (certainty of faith, fides divina) and human conviction (natural certainty, scientific certainty, fides humana).  That this distinction is both scripturally necessary, and practically very important, will result from the following account.” (68, 161 ff.)

So we could continue and portray Dr. Pieper’s doctrine of Holy Scripture in all its parts and with its own words prove it correct.     L. Fuerbringer.

= = = = = = = =  continued in Part 6  = = = = = = = =

This is the end of Fuerbringer's first portion dealing with “sola Scriptura”.  As I finished translating this, I wrote down the following question that I would have posed to Ludwig:

“Did you not teach sola Scriptura to your son, Alfred O. Fuerbringer, who also became President of Concordia Seminary?”

      But before I continue with the next portion in this series, I want to apply Pieper's major point about the “crime against the Divine majesty”. There is legal term today similar to the Latin term used by Pieper: “Lèse-majesté” – a crime “against the dignity of a reigning sovereign”, sometimes referred to as “Treason”.  Pieper uses this strong term for those who deny the full divinity to Holy Scripture.    As I was translating Pieper's sentence and pondering the loss of my Christian faith 45+ years ago, one LC-MS theologian's name in particular came to my mind. Pieper's criminal charge can be applied properly to one of the most recognized names in Lutheran theology of the last 75 years and one of the most destructive teachers in Christendom of the 20th Century.  Who would that be? Find out in the next post. —  Then in the following Part 6, Fuerbringer begins his next portion dealing with great teaching that Pieper is to be known for – sola gratia.