John Gerhard, Prof. Mayes defend "grace alone" (vs Harrison)

        While researching some writings of John Gerhard, I had occasion to glance through the 2020 CPH book On Good Works - Theological Commonplaces. What impressed me was how thoroughly Gerhard defended against the Roman Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine, who doggedly defended his Church's doctrine of "grace and works" for salvation.

      The editor of this volume is Prof. Benjamin T. G. Mayes, a theologian who has been shown to hold questionable theology in other blog posts here and here. So it came as a surprise to me that he spoke well about Gerhard's strong defense against the Roman mixing of grace and works. What was perhaps most helpful was his quote from Catholic sources of their "Response" to the 1997 Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification. On page xii, Prof. Mayes quotes this Roman "Response":

“We can therefore say that eternal life is, at one and the same time, grace and the reward given by God for good works and merits” — (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) (see archived copy here.)

That is an official statement of the Roman Catholic Church in 1998 under Pope John Paul II. Prof. Mayes' republishing of this statement was most helpful for Lutherans today in order to see that there remains a major difference between Lutherans and Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church is the same church today as it was in the days of the Council of Trent. Now Prof. Mayes goes on to make the following statement of "Applications to Modern Theology": 

“Gerhard’s response [to Catholic theology] will thus be applicable to modern ecumenical discussions…”

That is a very appropriate statement! But our professor does not go into detail of what these "modern ecumenical discussions" might or should be. Perhaps that was not the place to do it. But he should have "discussions" within his own church body, particularly with President Matthew Harrison, who in his presentation of Walther's Church and Office said this (p. xiv, emphasis mine):

“As I perused the Catechism of the Catholic Church for contemporary documentation of positions of the Roman Catholic Church which Walther addresses and which are the object of Lutheran polemic, I noted numerous points of remarkable convergence of Lutheran and Roman Catholic doctrine on the Office of the Ministry. While we must reject what is false, we can also joyously note what is right—no matter who says it.”

Now if Prof. Mayes actually believes what John Gerhard defended, then he would recognize the fallacy in Harrison's statement. Because when the Roman Catholic Church condemns "grace alone" and "faith alone", it has struck at the heart of the Christian faith. And so there can be no "convergence of Lutheran and Roman Catholic doctrine", no matter what doctrine the papists teach.

==>> Prof. Mayes: Do you really believe what John Gerhard defended? It seems that your spiritual leader causes one to question "grace alone".

CM6c: Harrison's “tension”, Walther's “loving bond” (Iowa 1879)

      This continues from Part CM6b (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. — In support of the title of this blog post, I quote again from Walther's 1879 Iowa District essay, page 47, the famous paragraph that follows his quote from the Formula of Concord, X, 9, but this time my translation: 

O dear brothers of the laity, remember this passage! Our dear Church has given you a treasure from her best days. You must hold on to it; for what good are all rights if you do not know them or do not use them? — Where God's Word has neither commanded or nor forbidden something, the congregation [Gemeinde; Walther's double emphasis] has the decision, not a synod, not a pastor, not a presbytery, not a consistory. That is what our church confesses. It is a liberal [or free] church. It is not a clerical ruled [pfaffenherrschaftliche] community, but a community of members of Christ who are united by an evangelical, gentle, loving bond.

Just how important this passage was to Old Missouri can be demonstrated by Pres. Friedrich Pfotenhauer's verbatim citation of it in his essay "Walther as the Founder and Leader of Our Synod", in Der Lutheraner, vol. 67 (Oct. 1911), p. 341. Note well! Pfotenhauer does not call Walther a "co-founder" with Loehe as Harrison does, but "the Founder". — Where does New Missouri LC-MS Pres. Matthew Harrison teach like Walther above? He does not.

      I want to compare the final phrase of Walther, highlighted in green above, with the teaching of Pres. Matthew Harrison. Along with a mistranslation of the Formula of Concord by Harrison and the LC-MS (see Part CM6a and here), this paragraph shows another glaring difference:

Iowa District, 1879, p. 47; Der Lutheraner, vol. 67 (1911), p. 341	Church and Office, p. 76
“the congregation… is not a clerical ruled community, but… are united by an evangelical, gentle, loving bond.”	“Wilhelm Löhe promoted Luther's ‘from above’ teaching of the office.… Höfling…promoted the ‘from below’ teaching. Walther held both in all their challenging tension.”

Walther and Pfotenhauer teach that where the Word of God rules, the congregation and the pastor are not in opposition to each other in a “challenging tension” but are “united by an evangelical, gentle, loving bond”. How different is the doctrine of Harrison, Prof. Benjamin Mayes, and the LC–MS from that of Walther and Pfotenhauer! — One will also notice that Harrison apparently wants to assert that “Luther's so-called ‘from above’ teaching of the office” is different from Walther’s teaching of both "from above" and "from below".

      Another example exposing this one-sidedness of Pres. Harrison is Walther's statement made in a footnote to an essay evaluating the theology of Dr. Kraussold of Germany, a "Romanist Lutheran" (Lehre und Wehre, vol. 4 (1858), p. 354), my emphasis:

Unfortunately, it has come to the point that anyone who rejects the Romanist doctrine of the Office of Ministry [Harless, Preger, Walther, Pieper, J. T. Mueller, etc.] is now considered a follower of Höfling in this doctrine and is suspected of being such, whereas Höfling's doctrine of the office and that of the Romanist Lutherans are the two opposite extremes, between which the pure Lutheran doctrine, to which alone our Synod has professed and still professes, lies in the middle.

Harrison wants to place Walther in his own “Romanist Lutheran” “challenging tension” camp, while Walther sharply rejects such a position. So does Pfotenhauer.

      Walther's famous paragraph in the 1879 Iowa essay clearly demonstrates that he was not only a strong defender of the divine institution of the Ministry, but also the rights of the congregation, the laity. That is the Lutheran doctrine, "in the middle" Old Missouri's doctrine. Pres. Harrison is only promoting an "extreme" doctrine, "pfaffenherrschaftliche" rule, that comes from Romanist Lutherans, like LC-MS "co-founder" Wilhelm Loehe. Is it not fair to say that the LC-MS leaders and teachers do not want to be "stuck in the middle" with Walther? A supposed agreement between Walther's teaching and Harrison's is pure fiction. — In the next Part CM7…

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.

Walther's Foreword: out from Stephan’s Romanizing (Der Lutheraner 1857) Part 1 of 2

      Fortunately Concordia Publishing still sells the 1981 book Editorials from "Lehre Und Wehre", an English translation of selected writings of Walther from that publication.  I just now pulled out my copy purchased in the late 1990s and find my personal notations throughout the book.  Because Walther's writings became so important to me, at various times I have looked for a publication that brought the same "selected writings" from his Der Lutheraner, to no avail.  There have been only piecemeal translations scattered in various writings, but many references to this flagship publication of the Old German Missouri Synod. 

Of course with my recent rollout, now English speakers may read all of Walther's writings in Der Lutheraner in a readable English machine translation. — 

As I processed the text files of this publication, one of the writings struck me where Walther had written about the effect of the Saxon Emigration's leader, Martin Stephan. The early years of Walther in America and his relations with Martin Stephan are quite contentious among LCMS historians, so I decided to polish the translation of his "Foreword" to the volume for years 1857-1858, which was 13 years after the publication began. — 

      In his Introduction as Series Editor to the "Selected Writings of C. F. W. Walther", CHI Director August Suelflow said

"Finally we take a look at Walther the editor—one of his most important functions. Through Lehre und Wehre… and Der Lutheraner Walther exerted a strong influence toward orthodox Lutheranism."

All Lutherans would do well to study this brief account, a reflection, of Walther of the early years of the Saxon Lutheran Emigration, and the beginning of the publication of… Der Lutheraner.  From vol. 14 (Aug. 25, 1857), pages 1-2 [EN]:

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

Foreword of the Editor

to the

Fourteenth Year of Der Lutheraner.

[by C.F.W. Walther]

In the autumn of 1838, about 800 Lutherans with Lutheran preachers, a certain Pastor Stephan from Dresden at their head, emigrated from Saxony to Missouri and arrived here in January 1839, except some fifty who were lost at sea and found their grave in it. Those Lutherans were under the delusion that they were the most faithful Lutherans, indeed many of them thought that they were the only faithful sons of the Church of the Reformation left in the world, that Germany had fallen and would never rise again, that God's judgments were approaching in this country and that nothing could withstand them any longer, and that the time had therefore come to flee. Matt. 24:15-16. However sincerely these Saxons meant what they said — to a great extent they left everything they held dear in this world and went to a country unknown to them at that time, from which they mostly expected and desired nothing but freedom of conscience and worship — they were themselves, however, without suspecting it, nothing less than true faithful members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.  

 

The aforementioned Pastor Stephen was the soul of the whole. He sought the strict Lutheranism in contrast to the unionist, sectarian and enthusiastic nature of the | new faith, in that he thought and taught essentially as a Romanist or rather as a papist, namely of the Church, of the Office [of Ministry], succession, authority, constitution, etc., and exercised a practice in keeping with this. The visible Lutheran church was to him the church apart from which there is no salvation; and since he believed that he and those who followed him alone were the visible Lutheran church, it was considered a foregone conclusion among the Saxons who blindly followed him that whoever wished to be saved must flee with them and gather where the existence of a truly Lutheran church was possible. Those who did not want to leave the fatherland were considered to be, if not already lost, then in the most urgent danger of their souls. Many, therefore, who were in confusion and distress in their consciences, often torn asunder, with bleeding hearts and weeping eyes, the most sacred bonds of natural love, blood, and profession, in order to follow and be with the “emigrating church” only. In like manner as the Romanizing doctrine of the Church, so was the effect of the Romanizing doctrine of the Ministry. The office of preacher stood as a mediator between Christ and the Christians, through which alone all graces and blessedness could be obtained. 

The ban of this Office, no matter how arbitrarily it might be imposed, went about the “church” like a speaking ghost with its finger lifted. Unconditional obedience in all things not contrary to God's Word, it was said, was owed by the “layman” to the “spiritual office,” in the face of God's disgrace and danger of eternal salvation. Even the secretly | harboring of misgivings, within the heart, against the officials, against their integrity, or even only against the expediency of their orders in the secular and ecclesiastical spheres, was regarded as a sure sign of a Judas heart. 1) 

1) Those who know the teaching and practice of Pastor [J. A. A.] Grabau at Buffalo and of his followers, will grant us that both are by all means nothing more than a second edition and perhaps still more obstinate implementation of Stephanism.

Thus a dark spirit of servile fear and distrust pervaded the community [Gemeinschaft], which even friends no longer dared to exclude. Hundreds felt the heavy pressure that lay upon them, and sighed for redemption, without knowing in what this redemption must consist of. The writings of the old godly fathers were eagerly read, also the confessional writings of our church, but with the glasses of preconceived opinions. [So with today’s LCMS!] The warning and punishing voice resounded everywhere: You are not what you claim to be, true Lutherans, but pilgrims to Rome and servants of men. But because this voice came mostly from those who evidently did not themselves walk faithfully in the footsteps of the fathers of our church, this voice was taken for the voice of temptation. But what happened? — The God who searches the hearts, who knows what is the mind of the spirit, and when we do not know what we should pray for, as is proper, represents us in the best way with inexpressible groaning, this God finally heard the groaning of the wretched for help in the spring of the year 1839, the meaning of which the prayers themselves had mostly not understood. [Page 2] God, then, made the man who stood at the head [Stephan] irrefutably manifest as an unfaithful and dishonest one. Hereby, of course, the foundation fell away for all that had believed on his authority. The natural consequence of this was that the very doctrines which, as was well known, had not been learned from the symbols of the church and from the writings of the old faithful fathers, immediately came into question; and behold! very soon it became evident that these doctrines also contradicted those contained in the confessions of our church [Walther gives credit to the Confessions, not himself] (the credibility of which nothing had been able to shake). In short, it was seen with horror that, in the opinion that they were the right true Lutheran Church, even the only one, they had moved further and further away from its doctrine and — had drawn nearer to Rome. Because of this, and for the sake of all the many sins that had flowed from it, they humbled themselves heartily before God and man, and now took pains to purify themselves more and more in doctrine and life. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Concluded in Part 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      It continues to amaze me just how far the LCMS has returned to the Romanizing of Loehe, Grabau, and Martin Stephan, i.e. "Stephanism".  They trivialize the seriousness of the Office of Preacher (i.e. the Ministry) standing as "a mediator between Christ and the Christians". And yet they want to claim to be "confessional".  They want to claim to be following Luther.  Prof. Benjamin Mayes, in 2011, even trivialized Walther's defense against Pastor Grabau. — In Part 2, we learn what prompted the beginning of the flagship publication of Der Lutheraner, and what it had to fight against as it progressed.

2 judgments of Walther: Mayes faults Walther, again (on Gerhard's terminology)

      This post is an excursus to Hochstetter's History Chapter 12 (Part 16) dealing with the so-called Predestinarian Controversy, and Walther's pivotal role in it.

Pastor Eissfeldt's 1931 testimony for Walther

      To add to Pastor Hochstetter's testimony of Walther's theological skills in discussions with the opposing members of the Iowa and Ohio Synods, I would add a quote from a 1931 writing published in CHIQ (CTS-FW Media) from a pastor who knew Walther intimately, Pastor Carl Eissfeldt [lutheranmuseum.com; Find-A-Grave; DL30 (1880), p. 52-53]. Much more will be said about this short essay in a future blog, but for now, let us hear his judgment of Walther's theological ability (emphasis mine):

"Already in my younger years I had occasion to admire Dr. Walther’s patience in dealing with his opponents. His firmness and tenacity in clinging to the clear doctrine of the Word of God was matched by his remarkable patience with such as were still caught in the meshes of false doctrine. This trait of Walther’s struck me already in the days of my childhood on the occasion of the Iowa Colloquium in November of the year 1867.… To the memories of Walther indelibly impressed on my mind belong also the days when, after the controversy on Predestination had broken out, a conference took place in the seminary of the Wisconsin Synod between representatives of the Synodical Conference and those charging us with Calvinism. Walther and Professor Craemer were guests in my parents’ home on this occasion. Never have I seen Walther so downcast, so depressed in spirit, as in those days. Usually Walther took an active part in the conversation whenever he returned from any synodical meeting. This time he came to our home from every meeting silent, utterly saddened; he took almost no part in the conversation, ate only what my mother urged upon him, and retired early to the solitude of his bed-chamber, where, without doubt, he wrestled in fervent prayer with his God."

Prof. Mayes 2018 judgment against Walther

      Walther's understanding of the Ohio and Iowa Synods, the dogmatists of Lutheran Orthodoxy, and the Formula of Concord in relation to the Doctrine of the Election of Grace is historic.  Much has been written about this, both by Old Missouri and also by the LC-MS.  The two points at issue are firstly that Scripture alone is the norm and rule of theology, and secondly that theological terminology should avoid confusion wherever possible.  Walther masterfully demonstrated his Scriptural theology and his language usage, i.e. the meaning of "instrumental cause", especially in the Predestinarian Controversy — see Hochstetter's footnotes to pages 365-366. So it is with sadness that Prof. Benjamin T. G. Mayes continues his misjudging of Walther's theology in his understanding of the great dogmatist John Gerhard in his "General Editor's Introduction"  to the English translation of Gerhard's writing On Justification Through Faith, (CPH, 2018). Mayes enjoys some support of a conservative LCMS Pastor Joshua Scheer (WB) regarding Mayes' "great work in the name of Lutheran Orthodoxy". But Prof. Mayes says (p. xvi-xvii, emphasis mine):

• Walther "failed to define the terms and imported a different meaning of “instrumental cause” than what was used by Gerhard." [Really? Walther misunderstood theological Latin usage of "instrumental cause"? Did he also "fail" in his judgment of Musaeus on this same term, Hochstetter p. 366?]
• Walther "is wrong on what the Lutheran Orthodox meant by faith as a causa instrumentalis… of justification and why they used this terminology." [Or could it be that Editor Mayes is himself weak on the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification, as he is on a hierarchical doctrine of the Ministry, like Loehe and Grabau?]
• "Walther rejected the idea that faith is a ‘nonprincipal impulsive cause of justification and salvation.’ Gerhard rejected the same idea." [As if Walther was not also aware of this!]

Gottfried Fritschel:
Walther is "a disgrace";
Mayes mentor?

Mayes is overly defensive of Gerhard on this point.  His judgment, while not as harsh, is similar to that of Prof. Gottfried Fritschel of the old Iowa Synod as he, against Walther's judgment of Gerhard's weak terminology, "exclaimed under the mask of pious horror":

“What a gross insult against the Lutheran Church, what a disgrace!” (Hochstetter's History p. 365)

Mayes admits that Gerhard and Walther agree on the chief point at issue.  But Mayes incredibly thinks he understands theological Latin usage better than Walther, and so feels compelled to fault Walther for being over cautious on terminology against Gerhard.  But Walther is the greater theologian than Gerhard on this point for he guards not only the pure doctrine of Justification, he zealously guards the proper terminology that allows no misinterpretation.  And that is exactly how Walther exposed the issue on the usage of the Latin term "intuitu fidei", or "in view of faith" by the Ohio and Iowa Synods. This judgment of Prof. Mayes is like his judgment against Walther in his 2011 CTQ essay. (Sadly Mayes also criticizes the theological judgment of Robert Preus on this same issue.)  Prof. Mayes would do better to just continue getting more translations published, and then just sit at the feet of Walther. No theologian has understood the dogmaticians, the Lutheran Confessions, and proper theological terminology, better than… C.F.W. Walther.

>>>>>>    Luther, Chemnitz,… Walther! (not Gerhard in the Big 3)    <<<<<<< 

===>>> Could it be that CPH luminary Prof. Benjamin T. G. Mayes is in part responsible for the non-publication of Dr. Fred Kramer's English translation of Hochstetter's History by Concordia Publishing House? — In the next post, Part 17, Chapter 13 of Hochstetter's History.

2 new books: (2) Concordia Triglotta (2 of 2); Renaissance? (Part 1); Table of Contents

Continued from the previous Part 1.
    (See bottom of this post for Table of Contents on entire Concordia Triglotta series)

2) Concordia Triglotta

The venerable Concordia Triglotta is now again available from CPH. It was dropped from their lineup many years ago.  Back then it was a hardback book and included Friedrich Bente's "Historical Introductions...".   For awhile, Northwestern Publishing House picked up this basic Lutheran book but it was dropped again a few years ago.  And it seems this book was unavailable except "Used" from Amazon for some time... maybe a few years.  I would imagine that both institutions, CPH and NPH, would say that it was "too expensive", "unprofitable", "used the German fraktur font", and "not enough interest".  To that, I would say "Why was this so?"  Why was there too little interest in the book that contained the basic documents of the Lutheran Church?  Surely it wasn't because their church bodies had ceased being truly "confessional Lutherans"?  Surely it wasn't for a lack of continually teaching the beautiful Christian doctrines from the Lutheran Confessions?... a lack of continually bringing the history of the Lutheran Church that is so detailed in Bente's Historical Introductions... in adult Bible classes?  Surely not... was it?

But now there is a new publication of the Concordia Triglotta, this time again from Concordia Publishing House.  (See McCain's cyberbrethren blog on this from 2010).  But it is probably not in hardback, rather it is "Print-On-Demand" and it does not include Friedrich Bente's Historical Introductions....  And because it is "Print-On-Demand", it takes 2-3 weeks to produce digitally and is non-returnable.  I am glad to see that it is being offered again, but I suggest that the reader investigate available used copies before spending $70 + shipping on this new digitally produced version.  And who knows what sorry "introduction" or "preface" or "historical context" that CPH will have added to this new publishing?

This edition must be new since it is not yet listed on Amazon or the WorldCat catalogue.  Who knows if their "Print On Demand" books will ever be noted in the WorldCat system since CPH is calling this version the "1968" edition.  I must assume that this edition includes the original German and Latin versions along with the English translation of F. Bente and W.H.T. Dau.

There remains a Concordia Triglotta Edition on Amazon in a Kindle version for $0.99 USD, but the name is deceiving because it is only the English translation, and does not include the original German or Latin editions.  So this printed book appears to be the only way to purchase all 3 languages together, a good reference to compare the original languages to the English.  This can be handy when Walther or Pieper quote the Latin or German texts in their writings.  I use it regularly when I need the most authoritative source for all things "Book of Concord".

It seems CPH is becoming like the rogue publishers (e.g. Kessinger, Ulan, Nabu, etc.) who are using free online Google Books to print and sell again.  These publishers care nothing of the content of the books but only to make a monetary profit.  CPH is becoming more like the Expresso Book Machine that prints many books, old Google eBooks or new publishings "On Demand" — CPH cares little of the content of the old (German) Missouri Synod.

As for Friedrich Bente's Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, it is strangely unavailable on Google Books but is available on Gutenberg.org – so far.  If it is ever pulled off Gutenberg.org, here is a downloadable HTML file:

• Bente- Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books (Gutenberg) pg26909.html

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

==>> To: Rev. Paul T. McCain, Publisher - Concordia Publishing House, (BOC1580@gmail.com)

• Perhaps you should highlight the fact that Prof. John T. Pless, in his new book Martin Luther: Preacher of the Cross uses the unionistic Kolb-Wengert edition of the Book of Concord and maybe not this Concordia Triglotta or your new Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions book.  Page 20 of your sampler says: "Quotations from the Book of Concord with the abbreviation K-W are from Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). Reproduced by permission of Augsburg Fortress."       ===>>>  But you call it "A New Classic"??
• Perhaps you should also highlight on your blog how your chief "Academic, Professional Editor" Benjamin T. Mayes says "Martin Luther was NOT the lone hero of the Reformation"! Yes, that should be the headline of your next cyberbrethren blog post.

I can't wait to see these on your next blog posts, Rev. McCain.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Be not deceived, dear reader, by those who would claim that there is a "renaissance" in today's LC-MS.  What is happening in today's CPH and LC-MS is happening because they are embarrassed to find that the old (German) Missouri Synod was actually religious and spiritual... just like all the others they consider to be religious and spiritual, e.g. Herman Sasse, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Wilhelm Loehe, etc..  But as this "renaissance" proceeds, e.g. a republishing of the Concordia Triglotta, more of Luther's Works, and more of Walther's works, Walther's Hymnal, etc., it is apparent that what they really mean to do is place the old (German) Missouri Synod on an equal religious and spiritual footing to these others.  Ooooo....  wooowww!  CPH is printing German and Latin now!  We should be impressed!...  they are so religious and spiritual!  How they "began to pray and chant" and use "The Brotherhood Prayer Book"!  And how they soar now with their Gregorian chants... so high that they can judge Pieper, Walther, and...  Martin Luther!  Yes, they know the "truth", the great "truth" that Martin Luther was not "the lone hero of the Reformation"!  Oh, wow!... what religiosity!  What depth of spirituality!...

What blindness is their "renaissance".

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

Table of Contents - Concordia Triglotta series of blogs

Part 1 -  (this post) New/old book from CPH; Renaissance?
Part 2 -  Graebner vs. Pieper
Part 3 -  Unionistic editions of the Book of Concord
Part 4a - Pieper intro to Concordia Triglotta
Part 4b - Pieper: Bente's Preface - perfect agreement w/ Scriptures
Part 4c - Pieper: The Scripture Principle
Part 4d - Pieper: Luther, Scripture, detractors; Bente's Historical Introduction
Part 4e - Pieper: German/English language?; Amish analogy
Part 5a - Sasse/Ziegler confusion on "Missouri Synod" & Confessions
Part 5b - Sasse/Ziegler: criticize "Missouri"; Brief Statement over Confessions?
Part 5c - Sasse/Ziegler: "Statementarians"; The Confessional Lutheran
Part 5d - Sasse/Ziegler: Worship & Church Fellowship
Part 5e - Sasse/Ziegler: Ministry & Church
Part 5f - Sasse/Ziegler: Conclusion ("something lacking in Missouri's orthodoxy"?)
Part 5g - Sasse/Ziegler: An Appeal to Prof. Ziegler (Perhaps Not!)
Part 5h - Ziegler/Sasse: A dedication to Ziegler