CM1b: Walther reviews Harless II (Romanism); Harrison's & Lieberg's unbalanced, Romanizing teaching

[2025-06-08: updated link to Harless's book]

      This continues from Part CM1 (Table of Contents in Part CM1) in a series defending Walther against a false portrayal by LC-MS President Matthew Harrison on the doctrines of Church and Ministry. — This continues Walther's book review of Dr. Adolf Harless's pamphlet on the "hot topic" of Church and Ministry. Walther is practically ecstatic to find a theologian in Germany who recognizes the true Lutheran teaching on these doctrines. One will note that he does not give even a hint of caution against Harless's teaching, and therefore considers his doctrine the same, the same as what he taught in his own famous book of 2 years earlier. Yet Pres. Harrison claims that Harless "denies the positive divine institution of the office [of ministry]" all the while claiming Walther supports his own assertions towards sacerdotalism and Romanism, towards the views of Wilhelm Loehe (and Theodor Kliefoth). Walther disagrees. — From Der Lutheraner, vol. 10 (1854), pp. 170-172: 

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

Church and Ministry

by Dr. G. Chr. Adolph Harless

[Review by C. F. W. Walther, Part 2]

It is curious what Dr. Harless says about the fact that he accompanied his theses only with testimonies from Luther. He writes about this: 

"I start from the often made experience that in this dispute about what is according to the Lutheran way, it is often spoken and written in a way as if one had not read Luther's writings and public testimonies or had not understood them properly. And yet these are the historical foundation of our public church confession." †) 

———————

†) As sad as it is that quite a few theologians who call themselves Lutherans now confess outright that they can no longer agree with Luther's and our symbols' teaching on Church and Ministry, the honesty of such men deserves their respect; much more deplorable, however, is the fact that there are now also a number of those who, although they depart from that teaching in a Romanizing way [Loehe, Kliefoth, Vilmark, Dieckhoff, etc.?; see Preger here and here], nevertheless still maintain it through all kinds of dialectical (i.e. disputational) arts to persuade people that they agree with Luther and the Lutheran Confessions. It is impossible to say what havoc such a procedure causes. All sense of strict truthfulness, all honesty, must perish; and such "adherence" to the Confession on the part of its "friends" must necessarily undermine the Confession, its authority, and its usefulness for the preservation of doctrinal unity and purity, more than can be done by the most determined enemies of it. As far as these persons are concerned, we have the hope and the consolation that many of them do violence to Luther's writings and symbols unconsciously, blinded by preconceived opinions. This must, of course, soften the judgment of such persons, but the matter nevertheless remains highly dangerous and pernicious. The Editor.

———————

"If the two contradict each other, this must first be investigated and proven. If the Scriptures testify against both ecclesiastical authorities, I would have to submit. [!] But I have found neither the one nor the other so far. If the latter were the case (that the Lutheran doctrine contradicts Scripture), the dispute would take a completely different turn. It would then be about the truth of Scripture against Luther. Whether it would stand that way or whether it wanted to be put that way would first have to be clarified. I make an attempt at clarification with the following pages. They do not deal with anything but what seems to me to be one of the highest principles of the pending question. I am deliberately not going to go into the further conclusions arising from this, e.g. with regard to the ordination, church discipline and the like to be undertaken by the external church. As far as I am able to do so and God gives me time and strength, I will not withdraw from this service later. 

But first I must secure the principle (the basic doctrine). You have to bridle the horse where the bridle belongs. So that you now know what I mean, I will give my view in short basic sentences. If I then quote Luther in more detail, please do not regard this as a mere quotation of someone else's statement. I let Luther speak for me; for he speaks better than I am able to speak. It is also the case with men of such profession that what they have said for certain times, they seem to have spoken ‘as for all generations by providential dispensation’ (i.e. by the fact that God, who foreknew everything, has so ordained it). In this sense I introduce it, and in heartfelt opinion for both contending parties. May the Lord God grant blessing and peace in the growth towards a blessed unity of faith and confession."

May God be praised and glorified for all eternity that in these last sad times, when it seemed as if all the influential theologians of our church, under the pretense of stricter orthodoxy and churchliness, wanted to drop not only our Luther, but also our dear confession in one of the most important doctrines, and to reintroduce the old leaven of Roman papist heresy into our church as a little by little lost <page 171> jewel, He has given a man in the dear Dr. Harless, a man who has not only vividly recognized the high responsibility that his high office of guardianship in our beloved Church of the pure confession imposes on him, but who also possesses just as great loyalty and simplicity as a talent in every respect to stand at the head of the other fighters as a pioneer for the dearly won jewel of the pure doctrine of our Church. —

We will now follow with Harless's theses themselves, without the testimonies from Luther's writings after them; not because we considered this superfluous because of the testimonies from Luther already given in our [1852] writing: The Voice of Our Church [on the Question of Church and Ministry]; rather, we must confess that there are quite a number of Lutheran references in Harless's writing which we have not listed and which shed light on several important points which we have left dark. It is only because of the limited space of our paper that we do not include the quotations, and we hope that at least all our pastors will obtain the book for themselves, in order to be introduced more and more deeply into a doctrine which is in itself of such great importance, and about which a struggle is being waged [by Loehe and others!] at this very time and in this very place which is so incisive for the development of our church. We at least must recognize and confess with thanksgiving to God that we owe to this writing not only strengthening in the already recognized truth, but also highly important further instruction.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in the next Part CM1c  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Walther offers no criticisms of Dr. Harless's book, only heart-felt praise. And Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer reported that Walther's "writing (Kirche und Amt) had the approval of such distinguished Lutheran theologians as Harless…". 

But Pres. Matthew Harrison follows not Harless, and thereby Walther, but a later German pastor, Hellmut Lieberg, who in an extensive dissertation in 1962 largely defended the divine character of the Office of Ministry. Lieberg, and Harrison by reference, criticizes Harless, saying:

G. C. A. Harleß (Kirche und Amt nach luth. Lehre [Stuttgart, 1853]) sees in Luther only the divine institution of the function of the office, of the ministry of Word and Sacrament (cf. pp. 21 and 25), which, however, necessarily leads then to the appointment of the concrete office. But he does not attempt to relate this necessity back to a positive divine arrangement. (Office and Ordination in Luther and Melanchthon, CPH 2020, p. 91)

Pastor Lieberg and Pres. Matthew Harrison tip their hands towards the "high church" opinion that does little to defend the congregation's rights. Lieberg overreacts to one, such as Harless, who defends against Romanizing sacerdotalism. We will see further evidence of Lieberg's, and Harrison's, bias which will be presented in a later post. — Such is all too predictable, as Dr. John Wohlrabe documented the post-WWII Bad Boll confernces in Germany and the strong hierarchial position of the German Lutheran theologians (p. 331 ff.). 

And how much did the LCMS / CPH / Pres. Harrison spend to get the above Lieberg book translated and published in 2020?… a book that "has not been submitted to the process for doctrinal review"?  A book where even Rev. Dr. Ken Schurb judges:

"Highly debatable as some of Lieberg’s claims are, to say the very least, I hope they do not tug the LCMS away from its established position on Church and Ministry. That would be a consequential impact and a tragic one." (CHIQ Summer 2021, p. 72)

A "tragic impact"? It appears that there is serious disagreement between Dr. Schurb and Pres. Harrison. How ironic it is that Harrison injected himself into the CHI book Rediscovering the Issues Surrounding the 1974 Walkout by writing the "Historical Introduction" for Editor Schurb. — One may also note that Schurb's book of essays includes one by Dr. John Wohlrabe on Church and Ministry that describes (e.g. pages 227-228) the theology of Prof. Arthur Carl Piepkorn, a Walkout sympathizer, that matches the editorial comments of Pres. Harrison (p. xiv)!

      In the following Part CM1c, we present a subset of Harless's 18 Theses that highlights the differences between him and Pres. Harrison's position, followed by a full translation of all 18 Theses.

Kolb schools Luther and Formula on Free Will ("correction", "codicil", "cautioned"?)

      While researching my recent project on an essay by Dr. Walther on Melanchthon, a rather disturbing situation came to light regarding Dr. Robert Kolb's history and theology.  In particular, his analysis and reporting of matters relating to the doctrine of Free Will differ from orthodox teaching and history. Dr. Kolb does not hide his differences, but attempts to present his history in such a way that he appears to be orthodox while maintaining his differences. His readers are expected to accept his opinions because of his scholarship. But as Luther said to Amsdorf in 1534, scholarship is to serve Christ or it tramples Him under foot. Dr. Kolb places Luther's writing against Erasmus On the Bondage of the Will, or De Servo Arbitrio, under scrutiny. But does he keep in mind what Christ's Word says, that we are dead in our sins? (Eph. 2:5). — Now I present a "dialogue" between Drs. Robert Kolb and Martin Luther (emphasis mine):

Dr. Kolb says, in his book Bound Choice, p. 26: 

• "Luther may have regarded De servo arbitrio highly…" (may?)

But Dr. Luther says: 

• "For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism." (StL 21b, 2176; AE 50, 173)
• "He (Erasmus) endeavors to defend his book On Free Will, against which I wrote my book On the Enslaved Will, which as yet he has not refuted, and will never in eternity be able to refute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the devil together with all his minions to refute it." (Table Talk StL 22, 1081, Bente 225)

Dr. Kolb says, ibid. p. 26:

Luther "did not regard it [De Servo Arbitrio] as infallible."

But Dr. Luther says:

• “These thoughts must be opposed by the true and firm knowledge of Christ… For this is what He affirms of Himself, Mal. 3, 6: ‘I am the Lord, I change not,’ and Rom. 11:29: ‘For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.’ Accordingly, in the book De Servo Arbitrio and elsewhere I have taught that we must distinguish when we treat of the knowledge of God or, rather, of His essence. For one must argue either concerning the hidden or the revealed God." (StL 2, 176-177, Bente 224. Luther based his work on Holy Scripture, the infallible source and norm.)
• “It was my desire to urge and set forth these things, because after my death many will quote my books and by them try to prove and confirm all manner of errors and follies of their own. Now, among others I have written that all things are absolute and necessary; but at the same time (and very often at other times) I added that we must look upon the revealed God" (StL 2, 184-185;  AE 5, 50; Bente 224)

Dr. Kolb says:

• "…the reformer’s own 'correction' of his position [in De Servo Arbitrio] in his comments on Genesis 26 some fifteen years later." (Bound Choice, p. 9), 
• Luther "offered codicils to what he had be­queathed to his followers in De servo arbitrio." (p. 26)
• Luther ''cautioned against possible misinterpretations of De servo arbitrio" (p. 271)

But Dr. Luther says:

"He (Erasmus) endeavors to defend his book On Free Will, against which I wrote my book On the Enslaved Will, which as yet he has not refuted, and will never in eternity be able to refute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the devil together with all his minions to refute it." (Table Talk StL 22, 1081, Bente 225)

And the Formula of Concord says:

"Even so Dr. Luther wrote of this matter also in his book De Servo Arbitrio, i. e., Of the Captive Will of Man, in opposition to Erasmus, and elucidated and supported this position well and thoroughly, and afterward he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition of the book of Genesis, especially of Gen. 26. [See StL 2, 174-177; AE 5, 42 ff.] There likewise his meaning and understanding of some other peculiar disputations introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute necessity, etc., have been secured by him in the best and most careful way against all misunderstanding and perversion; to which we also hereby appeal and refer others." SD 2, 44 (On Free Will)

The Formula speaks of Luther's De Servo Arbitrio in nothing but laudatory terms. And while Dr. Kolb asserts that Luther himself portrayed the elucidation in his Genesis Commentary as a "correction", the Formula says the opposite. The Formula of Concord is an integral part of the Lutheran Book of Concord and yet Dr. Kolb openly contradicts it. To assert that Luther's Genesis Commentary "corrects" his De Servo Arbitrio is unconfessional and is fiction. So how can he claim to be a "confessional" Lutheran? How can he claim "much greater precision" in his histories? (Kolb even goes so far as to say (Bound Choice, 28) "…the two were sometimes arguing past each other", essentially charging Luther with "arguing past" Erasmus!)

      By all appearances, Dr. Kolb is a follower of Germany's theologians at the time of the 1948-1949 Bad Boll conferences where it was reported by Prof. F. E. Mayer that

“Dr. [Werner] Elert maintained furthermore that the recent Luther studies…have shown that the Lutheran Confessions show a deviation from Luther. German Lutheran scholars therefore are interested more in the study of Luther than of the Confessions.” (The Story of Bad Boll, p. 16)

Reading the works of Dr. Robert Kolb, like those of Werner Elert, is an exercise in trying to follow circumlocutory, philosophical, nebulous language, where one ends up being confused on Christian doctrine, and even questioning one's faith. Kolb thought so highly of his Bound Choice book that he used it as an authority for his other historical writings. Shame on him for criticizing Nikolas von Amsdorf for standing with Luther on this very same doctrine against Free Will (Amsdorf, p. 164).

>>>   Back To Luther, not Kolb.   <<<

M03: M.'s good confessions in Luther's last years; Lowell Green's attacks, Marquart's rebuttal

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — Walther shows us the good confessions of Melanchthon, even as he complains of "more disunity" which would lead others to a false conclusion.  This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 323-4 [EN]::

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 3 of 28  - - - - - - - 

Without doubt, however, Melanchthon had only been against the meeting [for the Wittenberg Concord] because he had feared that it would only become trouble because of ill will.  Already before that he had written to Landgrave Philip in relation to the projected meeting: “Now I am worried for many reasons that this will lead to more disunity, and that more treachery, hatred, indulgence and public scolding will arise.” (op. cit. p. 56) He expressed the same concern also in letters to Veit Dietrich. (p. 65, 70) As suspicious as all this can be seen, Melanchthon is not to be believed that he should have signed the [Wittenberg]“Concord” in contradiction with his conviction at that time.  In 1537 we find Melanchthon among the signatories of the Smalcald Articles, which, as is well known, express Luther's doctrines in such clear words that an opponent of them can only sign them as one self-condemned. (Autokatakritos). In 1538 we read further in a response of Melanchthon to one of the nobility: 

“There is no reason to tear Christ apart, that He is with us according the Godhead, and is not with us according the humanity, especially since He said He would give us His body and blood etc.  Paul also says that the Lord's Supper is a fellowship of the body and blood of Christ. But if Christ were not bodily present, it would be fellowship of the Spirit alone, and not of body or blood. And this I consider to be enough for a simple teaching.  Now these words of the Supper are not contrary to other Scripture, whether they are already foreign to reason.” (p. 620)  

We find a particularly splendid confession of Melanchthon in the testament which he wrote in 1539 in a premonition of death.  In it he writes among other things:

“Of the Lord's Supper I hold fast the Concordia made here. *) I have therefore joined these churches, and I hold (LuW 324) the fact that they professed the doctrines of the universal Church of Christ and were true churches of Christ. And I command my children to remain in our churches and flee the churches of the Papists and from binding with them.  For in many articles the Papists confess a very corrupt doctrine: they know nothing of the doctrine of the righteousness of faith and of the forgiveness of sins; they teach nothing of the difference between the Law and the Gospel; they have pagan or Pharisaic opinions about the invocation of God; to these errors they add many others, as well as manifest idolatry in their masses and their veneration of the deceased people. I therefore demand of my children that they obey me for the sake of God's command in this and do not join the Papists. … New sophistical comparisons of the doctrines of the faith will perhaps arise, by which the old errors, somewhat colored, will be restored, and these comparisons will spoil the purity of the doctrines which are now being taught.  I also warn my own people against these, that they do not approve of sophistical comparisons. … My intention has not been to sow any new opinion, but to make a clear and real declaration of the catholic doctrines taught in our churches, which I believe have been revealed by a special act of grace of God in these last times through Dr. Martin Luther, so that the Church might be purified and restored, which otherwise would have been completely lost. … But I thank the venerable Dr. M. Luther, first of all because I learned the Gospel from him. And secondly for the special goodwill he has shown towards me, which he has shown through many good deeds, and I want the same to be honored by my own people only as a father.” (Corp. Ref. III, 826. f.) 

——————

*) Proof that Melanchthon had signed the Wittenberg Concord with complete conviction. 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 4  - - - - - - - - - -

Walther surprisingly tells us that "Melanchthon is not to be believed" when he speaks at this time in ways that would condemn himself as a hypocrite. All those who would say that Walther (and Bente) is only wanting to put a “black hat” on Melanchthon will have to ignore several points that he makes, here and elsewhere, of the strengths of Melanchthon during this period.  Indeed, it was my pleasure to present other examples of his strengths on my blogs here and here. — In the next Part 4… 

- - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Historians: Dr. Lowell C. Green   - - - - - - - -

anti-Missourian

      Who was Dr. Lowell C. Green († 2014)? He certainly was a talented, well-read, and educated scholar. Various sources (CLTS, Wikidata, funeral sermon by Dr. John T. Pless) reveal that he was never trained in the LC-MS, but by the opposing Iowa Synod and theologians of Erlangen in Germany (doctorate, 1952 to 1955). But much more, Dr. Green taught in the LC-MS against Missouri's teachings. It was said that he was influenced by "Werner Elert, Paul Althaus, Wilhelm Maurer." He testifies in his books to having been especially influenced by Prof. Werner Elert who maintained that the "Lutheran Confessions show a deviation from Luther" and that as a "Bad Boll" participant "asked whether verbal inspiration will not lead to an intellectual and legalistic apprehension of the Bible." The result has been that Dr. Green has always taught modern German theology against Old Missouri Synod teaching. A blatant example of this was published in Logia May, 1996, Dr. Green wrote (p. 32):

“Walther expressed some positions [on Church and Ministry] that become subject to criticism when reviewed in the light of the Scriptures and the Confessions.”

Prof. Kurt Marquart († 2006) gave a masterful rebuttal to this attack in Logia 1997, no. 2, p. 31 ff. [2024-01-02: fixed link], also here. He uses strong language against Green's methodology such as 

• Green's "tangled webs of half-understood clichés from mistranslated sources", 
• "Green keeps taking away with one hand what he gives with the other", and
• "Green has made up a scarecrow.", etc. 

In the same rebuttal, Marquart highly praises Hochstetter's history of the Missouri Synod, so one could wonder that he would also praise Bente's history. May the name of Prof. Kurt Marquart be remembered for his outspoken defense against this outrageous attack of Dr. Green. — 

      LC-MS Prof. Martin Naumann explained the thinking of Dr. Green's teachers in Germany, in the Springfielder, vol. 24 (1960), no. 2, p. 19, that for them "it is impossible to present one's theology if one [Missouri Synod?] still is so backward as to believe in inspiration." — The over-arching question one has to ask is "Why was Dr. Green allowed to teach in LC-MS schools, to write for LC-MS journals?" if he was trained in opposing schools and explicitly taught against LC-MS doctrine? Unfortunately, Dr. Green's sympathy for Grabau was matched by that of Prof. Benjamin T. G. Mayes in "honor" of C. F. W. Walther in 2011! — We will later give more examples of Dr. Green's explicit charges against Walther's and Bente's (i.e. Old Missouri's) history and teaching.

J.T. Mueller’s poem for Pieper (1931 Luth. Witness)

      Continuing the series of posts on the tributes for Dr. Franz Pieper after his "going home" on June 3, 1931, it is fitting that the poem of the younger associate, J. T. Mueller, who lived the longest (†  1967) among the erring generation after him, should be published.  Although Mueller did not follow Prof. P. E. Kretzmann in leaving the LC-MS in 1950, and had some weaknesses, yet he maintained Pieper's Biblical, confessional doctrines throughout his lifetime.  As was mentioned in a previous post, he even translated his own English abridgment of Pieper's Christian Dogmatics back into German so that the Missouri Synod could furnish a concise book of orthodox Lutheran teaching to the German theologians after World War II (Bad Boll conferences).  It is sad to say that even though the Allies won the military war against the Germans, yet the modern German theology that battles against orthodoxy and against Pieper/Mueller's teaching is now the norm in all external Christendom. —  But enough of the world and today's LC-MS, I now present Mueller's heartfelt tribute to the "going home" of the "Twentieth Century Luther":

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

The Lutheran Witness

Vol. L.              ST. LOUIS, MO., JUNE 23, 1931.            No. 13. (p. 213)

In Memory of Our Teacher Dr. Francis Pieper.

† June 3, 1931. †

He lived immortal; for to him to live

Was solus Christus;1) both by word and pen

His only message was a grand amen

To God’s pure Word; naught else he had to give.

Sola Scriptura2) was the constant source

From which he drew theology divine

And sola gratia3) the matchless mine

Of sinful man’s sole solace and recourse.

Salvamur sola fide.4) So did he

Rest every dogma on the precious blood

Which from Messiah’s wounds on Calvary

Flowed for mankind with universal grace.

With Paul and Luther by the cross he stood

And visioned God in Christ with open face.

St. Louis, Mo. John Theodore Mueller.

1) Christ alone.     2) Scripture alone.   3) Grace alone. 4) We are saved by faith alone.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

Further tributes to Pieper's memory from the Lutheran Witness in 1931 will follow.