Pres. Harrison confesses truth of 6-day Creation (“natural days”) (Corrected)

[2018-01-26: see correction below, beginning in red, to amend this post]
      What a joy for me this day, to run across President Matthew Harrison's Jan. 3, 2018 blog (Archived) that not only confirms and confesses the Biblical 6-day Creation teaching, but even more, that he upholds the truth of Holy Scripture as a basis for his faith.  Even as he left a little room for equivocation ("in my view"), God knows the tears of joy that filled my eyes.  How much different is this joy than my warning blog post of 1 year ago where I had to tell Harrison that his LC-MS was on the wrong path, that the right path was the "old paths", back to the truth of Holy Scripture, just as his predecessor Walther followed, and Franz Delitzsch commended in Walther but faltered on himself.

      Also, what a joy to read that one of my current followers on this blog added their commendation to Harrison's blog post.  There is no greater joy for me than to see both of these.

      As I read through the blog post quickly, it was immediately apparent, also by his heartfelt, humble prayer to God at the end, that Harrison is responding to recent publications and responses.  I also kept thinking that Harrison read my blog from November last year and in other places and is confirming my plea to the LC-MS.  But I must tell him that my prayer is that he did not read my blog, but that others within his LC-MS have woke him up to the reality of deadly, poisonous heterodoxy among the teachers of the LC-MS.

==>> Note to Ken Ham: Your mission to re-establish the truth of the 6-day Creation doctrine among Christians, also your recent mission to establish the clarity of Holy Scripture, is just an echo of what the Lutheran Church has taught from its beginning.

      May God bless Harrison's forthright confession of the Truth to His Glory!  May God answer Harrison's prayer of "God help us"!  I must tell him that God cannot help but answer that prayer!  I would suggest that he should amend his ending to add Luther's ending: Amen.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      And so it is that I must answer Harrison's plea to be "kind to those who struggle with the issue".  Most certainly Luther was patient with those weak in faith, but to the teachers of the faith who erred, Luther was not "kind" but reproved them.  That was his Christian kindness.  Unfortunately there is much left to reprove in today's LC-MS.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

2018-01-26: Others are being more discerning than I was on Harrison's recent pronouncement on this teaching of "6-day creation" and saying he avoided better language that would more clearly refute the erring teachers of the LC-MS -- particularly the use of "24-hour days". Given Harrison's past evasions of error, I bow to their judgments -- 

     Specifically Jack Cascione also rightfully points out the "most offensive part of his (Harrison's) statement": 

“Because I believe the Gospel, I recognize the words of my shepherd, Jesus, in Holy Scripture.”  

Cascione then masterfully exposes the fallacy in this statement: 

“The testimony of the Holy Spirit in every word of Scripture is why we believe the Bible, not by extension because I believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Tim. 3:16 KJV)”

I can only add to Cascione's statement that his point is solidly backed up by not only C.F.W. Walther, but the 1886 Synodical Conference essay which said: 

The New Theologians cry, “No, Christ is the foundation of the Faith, not Scripture!” However, with that, they completely contradict Eph. 2, [Eph. 2:20] “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.”  … It really does sound nice when they say, “No! Christ is the foundation of the Christian Faith!” But this is nothing more than a superb illusion.

     And now surprisingly Norm Fisher has added his voice to those truly confessionally minded.  Both of these convincing refutations have been published in the January 15, 2018 issue of Christian News. I would invite readers to remain vigilant on this specific topic.

Stoeckhardt on Missouri-4: Cosmology

This continues from Part 3, highlighting a major convention essay (in English translation) by George Stoeckhardt: The Missouri Synod (Table of Contents in Part 1).  In this part 4, I address one aspect of the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture, quoting Stoeckhardt against today's theologian for the LC-MS – Hermann Sasse:

G. Stoeckhardt: Missouri Synod, page 255: They [leaders of Protestant Christendom, Neo-Lutherans] think the Bible contains also matters of lesser importance, and these are of human origin. e.g., what Scripture says about sun, moon, and stars, what it relates about the history of nations, that is purely human. That's where you will find human errors, mistakes, and contradictions.

Hermann Sasse, “Additional Notes Concerning Holy Scripture” Scripture and the Church edited by Jeffrey Kloha p. 170: The third instance of the human limitation of the Scripture concerns the world-view of the holy writers. Where they speak of nature, of the sun, moon and stars, of heaven in an astronomical sense, and of the earth and its component parts, the Scriptures speak of the things in the way that they appeared to people of antiquity, not as they appeared to men of later centuries, and not as they are in themselves.

Prof. Jeffrey Kloha was particularly pernicious in his attempt to exonerate Hermann Sasse's erroneous teaching on Holy Scripture, long before the current "plastic text" controversy (see here).  Both Kloha and Sasse hate the theology of Walther and Pieper, and Kloha has openly stated that the LC-MS should disavow the Brief Statement of 1932.  I have news for Prof. Kloha: why bother?  The Brief Statement already has only lip service given to it anyway...  it's a great way to continue to deceive the laity, like the statue of Luther on the grounds of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis...

Stoeckhardt does not go into great detail on all the points where modern theology either denies outright or is not sure about the Creation account and Geocentrism.  But he says this to refute it (p. 255):

True "Missourian"

Our synod has all along protested against this view of Scriptures. It has maintained that the Bible is totally inspired by God and so is in all its parts infallible truth. But this is now called "Missourian separatistic doctrine". And many a controversy has arisen over this. Whoever in Germany does not accept this new doctrine or is not at all pleased with it does not belong in the church [in Germany] any longer. – G. Stoeckhardt

The year was 1894, but now in 2014, the statement concerning Germany then can not only be said of America, but also about those who would today call themselves the "Missouri Synod", at least to the extent the LC-MS allows room for evolutionism and an anti-Christian cosmology among its teachers, in violation of the Scripture teaching.

In the next Part 5a, I quote Stoeckhardt against Berthold von Schenk.

Archaeology-3: Luther's Chronology, again; Kloha's "plasticity"

This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a translation of Franz Pieper's essay warning against basing the Christian faith on "Biblical Archaeology".
     In the last installment, Pieper thanked God that

The Christian church makes its faith in the Scriptures in no way dependent on the research of Oriental Archaeology. 

How sad is Prof. Jeffrey Kloha of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis!  Thank God that Christians can’t be held hostage by the "results" of his research work proclaiming the Bible a "plastic text"!  Christians have a much higher authority than him... they have Christ and the Apostles.  Prof. Kloha would certainly attempt to deny my charge.  If so, then may he first and foremost repudiate his choice of words!  And while at it, may he repudiate (as Prof. Eugene Klug did) Hermann Sasse's equivocation on the truth of all of Holy Scriptures.

Translation by BTL – Underlining from original – Highlighting is mine – Hyperlinks added for reference.

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

A Word of Warning Against Overestimation of Archaeological Research.

by Franz Pieper

Lehre und Wehre vol. 42 (1896), p. 321-329

------ cont'd from Part 2 -----

[pg 325]

But he will have to vigorously defend himself against the others who question the Scriptures with the results of his research.  We just read the following bookseller’s announcement of Rudolf Merkel in Erlangen: "I received sole distribution for Europe: Hilprecht, HV, Old Babylonian Inscriptions chiefly from Nippur. The author gives an overview of the epoch-making results of the expedition of the University of Pennsylvania since 1888 with the systematic excavation of Nippur employed in the just published 2nd part of his work for the first time.  Even more so than the first part, which was described by the entire scientific press as a work of the first rank, the present part should be appropriate to attract the attention of Semitists, Old Testament theologians, archaeologists and historians. The editor provides important contributions to the early history and the beginnings of civilization in Babylonia. Above all, he gives insight, critically prepared and analyzed with great difficulty, of the oldest cuneiform texts – including one historically very important with 132 lines and far older than the famous Vulture Stele of Tello – an insight into the earliest Semitic state formations.   On the basis of  the comprehensive excavations in the lowest layers of the Bel temple ruins of Nippur, together with detailed paleographic studies, he determined the chronological relation of Sargon I and Naram-Sin to the kings of Tello and shows that the history of Babylonia must go back until the 7th or 8th pre-Christian millennium."  One cannot talk of 7 and 8 pre-Christian millennium, without attacking the historical character of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.  There is no room for so many thousands of years in the times of the Bible.  Hence Dr. Hilprecht must very energetically refuse to tolerate this use of his research.  How a Christian places himself in relation to human chronological research, if it will not be correct with the chronological information of Scripture, Luther shows his own example.  Luther has dealt, as is well known, very thoroughly with the biblical chronology. He "has diligently brought together and counted the years of World".1)  Compare his Supputatio annorum mundi [or Chronikon].2)  He encounters a difficulty in Abraham's life.  There seems to be 60 years missing.3)  But what explanation of his principled position does he deliver on that occasion?  He says: "It is absurd to follow the bold spirits that, whenever such a difficulty arises, immediately scream that there was a manifest error before, and without shame dare to emend books that are not their own.

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

1) St. L. ed. vol. 1, col. 721.  Exeg. opp. lat. Erl. III, 71.; Am. Ed. vol 2, pg 238

2) Jen. 4, 673; Walch vol. 14, col. 1110; St. L. ed., vol. 14, col. 486; Weimar ed. vol. 53, pg 1

3) In ipso Abrahamo nobis intercidunt anni LX Ex. opp. lat. III 71.

[pg 326]  

As for me, I do not know what is the answer to this question, though I have carefully added up the years of the world.  Now therefore I conclude with a humble confession of my lack of knowledge  (ignorantiae), as it is low (for only the Holy Spirit is the one who knows and understands all things)," etc.1)   In any case in which extra-biblical reports ended up in conflict with the reports of Scripture, the truth is – according to Luther – on the pages of Scripture.  He says that he "has not despised the historians entirely, but prefers the Scriptures to them." "I use them so" - he continues - "that I will not be compelled to resist the Scripture.  For I believe that in the Scriptures the true God speaks; but in the histories, good people by their ability, their diligence, and their faithfulness prove (but as human beings), or at least that the copyists, can err."2)  This position of Luther is that of every Christian and every Christian theologian. If external-biblical historical reports contradict the report of the Bible, the former are false.  Applied to the present case: if Assyriology leads Babylonian history back into 7th or 8th pre-Christian millenium, then that is an error.   Either we find the error already on the old tablets etc, or the Assyriologists have been mistaken in decoding them.

2) The other point to be noted is this: One does not overestimate the importance of archaeological research in terms of understanding the Scriptures.  The "Kirchenblatt" says: "He (Dr. Hilprecht) drew particular attention to those points which are of importance for the investigation and the understanding of the Old Testament.”  Archaeological research can some light be shed on historical notes of the Scripture, by individual outer circumstances which they report.  And this is not despised by the Christian Church, but accepts it gratefully.  But the illusion is widespread in our time, as if to understand the Scriptures, and what its doctrine concerns, was only quite recently  accessible by historical research.  Just recently we were compelled to reject a previously targeted comment of an English Lutheran church paper.  The thing is like this: All the teaching of Scripture from Scripture itself can be recognized clearly and certainly.  We do not need the research of "extra-biblical sources", which perhaps have only become available in the 19th century [up to the current 21st century! – BTL].  Were it otherwise, the church would have been in a bad way in the past centuries, and the present church would be dependent on the right knowledge of the Christian doctrine of the

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

1) l. c. III, 71; St. L. ed. vol. 1, 721; cp. Am. Ed. vol 2, pg 239.

2) Walch vol. 14, 1117; St. L. ed. vol. 14, col. 491 (not in Am. Ed.)

[pg 327]

incomplete and conflicting research of some scholars.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = cont'd in Part 4 = = = = = = = = =

Prof. John P. Meyer of the Wisconsin Synod (or WELS) allowed for 5,000 to10,000 years (by a report of a colleague) [see here]:

When students used to ask him: “Is it possible that Creation may have occurred between five and ten thousand years BC?” he would smile and say: “Yes, that may be possible.”

This is most distressing for me to read of this.  Franz Pieper protested this notion when he said above:

One cannot talk of 7 and 8 pre-Christian millennium, without attacking the historical character of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.

Oh!  There is a great disparity between John P. Meyer and Franz Pieper on this point.  And I suspect that Meyer was not unaware of the "old" teaching of Pieper and the "old Missouri Synod".  Someone may come to me and say

• that I don't know what I'm talking about... 
• that I don't know the "semitic" languages or all the findings of archaeology and assyriology...  
• that I don't understand modern "scientific dating methods" such as "carbon dating" (or whatever) 
• that Franz Pieper's position (and mine) is naive.  

But they would deceive themselves, for from my youth, a reading of Bible accounts never left me with the notion of large gaps of time between the chronological accounts given.  And it was Franz Pieper who firmly brought me back to the divine faith, the faith of my youth, and does not bend to the so-called "science" that cares nothing for the truth of the Bible.  And Pieper has the "audacity" to say that

This position of Luther is that of every Christian and every Christian theologian. 

But enough.  A much more complete discussion of this can be found in my blog series on Luther's Chronology of the World starting here.  The next Part 4 concludes my translation of Pieper's essay...

Astronomical "science": creatures on Mars? NASA, "origins" – Luther's judgment

Franz Pieper took note in 1896 of the industrious nature of a certain astronomer looking for inhabitants on Mars.  Some may laugh at this now, but what do they say about the efforts by NASA (and SETI Institute) to travel into space to discover "the origins of the universe"?  Do they not laugh at this?  Perhaps we need to listen to two Christians speaking (blogging?) on this topic, even if it is from 1896 (and earlier):
Translation by BTL, emphases are from original Pieper text, highlighting and hyperlinks are mine.)

A contribution to the astronomical "science".

by Franz Pieper

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 42 (1896), pg 239

Chicago, Ill., July 22.  A special dispatch from Boston, Mass, reports: [Percival] Lowell, Boston's famous astronomer, is currently on the way to Flagstaff, Arizona, at the head of a extremely important astronomical expedition. The purpose of this is to make observations concerning the planet Mars and, if possible, to obtain fully valid evidence that Mars is inhabited by highly organized creatures.  Mr. Lowell has for several years dedicated his studies to Mars and in 1894 he sketched a very complete map; and his information, that the canals observed on Mars are the work of purposeful working creatures and not the fruit of lifeless natural forces, has caused a great sensation among the Europe's astronomers.  As a result of this, the observations which Mr. Lowell intends to make now is awaited by astronomers of the whole world with great suspense.  The editors of a local newspaper remark: It is not true that Lowell was the first and most prominent in the claim that Mars had to be inhabited by intelligent beings. The main observers of Mars and the main advocates of the view that it was inhabited by intelligent beings were the Italian Schiaparelli and the French Flammarion, before Lowell.  Luther writes: "It is not possible that Nature will be recognized by reason after the fall of Adam which has blinded them, recognized further than experience or divine enlightenment gives.  So restless reason cannot remain silent and be satisfied because it wants to know everything, like a monkey; this is why she puffs up, and muses and researches further than is commanded her, and despises what has been given her by experience or from God; nor takes what it seeks for.  So fools work in vain with all their studying and knowledge. Therefore it has come that the people, because they despise the natural art or could not attain to it, have divided into countless groups and sects.  Several have written of the earth, several of the waters, some this, some that, so that the making of books and of studies is without measure.  Finally, when they were tired of study here on earth, they ascended to heaven and wanted to know the nature of heaven and the stars, of which nevertheless no experience of it may ever be had.  There they have overcome with quite free power to fictionalize, lie, deceive, and say whatever they pleased of the innocent heaven.  For as one says: Those who lie about distant lands, lie boldly so that they cannot be denied with experience.  So also because nobody may reach to the heavens and verify through experience their teaching or point out their error, they are free to lie with complete confidence that no one will challenge them." (St. Louis ed., vol. 11, col. 301, paragrs 18-19; cp. Am. Ed. vol 52, pgs 164-165)  – Franz Pieper.

= = = = = = = = = = = = 

Space.com says this about the sensation of Percival Lowell:

In hindsight, Lowell's claims of intelligent life on Mars were outlandishly speculative. But his conclusions joined a chorus of false impressions about Mars that predated him by centuries and lasted well beyond his death in 1916.
As late as 1924, earthlings listened for radio signals from Mars -- at the request of the U.S. government. And in 1938 Orson Welles' radio antics frightened thousands of listeners into believing Martians had invaded, first targeting New Jersey.
Nowadays we know the canals don't exist and that there are no invading forces, of course.

Space.com would use the label "outlandishly speculative", essentially vindicating the judgment of Martin Luther (and Franz Pieper) on man's reason after the fall of Adam.  But Space.com would also definitely NOT use that term on themselves or on NASA in relation to the mission to discover the "origins of the Universe".  And what about the attempts to continue to find at least the beginnings of life on Mars by scientists...  certainly that is not "outlandishly speculative", is it?
     Having been trained in science and engineering, I fondly recall the teaching about the "Scientific Method" in my youth.  Wikipedia speaks of it this way:

...based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Hmmm... since the 17th century... could it be the light of the Reformation moved "science" from the days of "alchemy" to the the days of "scientific method"?  Oh, but surely we aren't allowed to attribute today's advances in science to the Reformation, are we?  But who would deny that man's experience in science has advanced tremendously since the days of Luther and also Franz Pieper?  Traveling in space, even to the Moon, nanotechnology, and a myriad of other studies of science.  But every time they speak of "evolution" or try to "explain the origin of life in the universe" or of the universe itself, then Christians can only repeat in their hearts what the Bible teaches on these matters and then recognize that this folly of man is no different than those who held the notion "that Mars had to be inhabited by intelligent beings".
     Surely the SETI Institute speaks for NASA when they state their mission:

"Our mission is to ... explain the origin ... of life in the universe..."

And to NASA and SETI Institute, Martin Luther's judgment continues to apply:

Those who lie about distant lands, lie boldly so that they cannot be denied with experience. 

Ken Ham and his Answers In Genesis teaching on Creation

Mr. Ham enjoys some notoriety in the world today because of his teaching of a literal six-day Creation.  I recall having my faith strengthened by this and other so-called creation ministries.  I just received a mailing from him lamenting the sad state of the external church bodies today that have given up the literal teaching of Creation.  But Ken Ham also teaches a doctrine of salvation that is close to the Lutheran teaching... his reformed leanings have not led him too strongly to espouse a "decision for Christ" synergism.
Ken Ham is a vocal advocate for the authority of God's Word which pleases me.  He even praises Martin Luther on occasion... something that a few Reformed teachers do. Again, this pushes him into the Lutheran camp... except he falls on occasion. When there was some talk of evidence of life outside our Earth, he made a statement to the effect that "we must not be dogmatic" about the teaching of only life on Earth, which is Biblical teaching.
But the real difficulty for Mr. Ham is the issue of church denominations.  He attempts to stay above the differences among external church bodies.  But there is a church called the Lutheran Church which is the denomination that stands alone on the Word of God. And I am not speaking about today's external church bodies that claim the Lutheran name... but rather those who teach the true Lutheran (that is the true Christian) doctrine.  And those are few and far between.

Geocentrism & Copernicus - more on Walther's teaching

[August 20, 2015 - added reference to
For reference, see my previous post on Geocentrism and the teachings of the Missouri Synod.  I have since found where Walther spoke even more directly on the Copernican System.  It was in his convention essay for the Eastern District, 1868. It is found in the book Essays For The Church – C.F.W. Walther, Volume I, 1857-1877 (CPH, 1992), pages 185-186.  This was taken from the 1868 Eastern District Convention essay, see here for download of original.  During a presentation on the Primary and Secondary Fundamental Articles of Faith and Nonfundamental Articles, a question was raised about the Copernican System and the Bible verses Joshua 10:12-14 where the sun revolves around the earth.  To this Walther answered:

This is a part, not an article of the doctrinal structure. Now, if someone cannot see that Holy Scripture wants to teach this here and in other passages, he can indeed still be a believing Christian. However, one who believes that the author of the Book of Joshua meant to write about the sun’s orbit but was himself in error in this matter, he makes the foundation of all doctrinal theology, Scripture itself, uncertain and therefore attacks the foundation. But one who thinks that Joshua is speaking optically, as the Copenicans also do when they say, “The sun is rising,” “The sun is setting"- one cannot condemn him.

In this connection the question was again raised whether it can be admitted that the Bible speaks optically.
Answer:

This teaching, whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun, is not an article of faith, but at most only an object of faith, a part of the doctrinal structure of Holy Scripture. [But] because such (optical) language is unworthy of God, in that He would then be using a human way of speaking that contains an error, one must regard such a person as being in error but not as a heretic. But on the other hand it is also certain that such a person is setting up a dangerous hermeneutical principle, in that, you see, this statement is not only given to Joshua to say, but is also used by the author of this [book of] Scripture in the same way in verse 13—a principle whose consequences make the Bible unreliable for him....

An awful lot of today's Christians are "making the Bible unreliable" by believing anything other than what the Bible actually says.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
July 7, 2012 Addendum:
I must thank Matthew L. Becker,[updated 2020-02-26] Associate Professor of Theology at Valparaiso University, for highlighting the unbelief of even a teacher of "theology" at a "Lutheran" university.  He says it best for today's modernism in his blog of December 23, 2010 where he says:

While I had my doubts about Pieper's view of the Bible, the world, and theology already in seminary (who wouldn't, given that he doubted the verity of the Copernican Theory and thought that Einstein's theories of relativity would eventually vindicate a geo-centric biblical cosmology?!)

Yes, Professor Becker, there are a lot of people who have doubts about the Bible because of so-called "science" that refutes it.  But Jesus answers you directly:

It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! Luke 17:1

And Becker is wrong on another point – Pieper did not doubt the verity of the Copernican Theory, he knew it was wrong where it taught that the earth was not the primary planet in the universe.  Why?  Because he believed God at His Word, the Bible.

Geocentrism (Fixed earth)

[2017-10-02: added note in red at bottom]

What is it?  It is the term used by Wikipedia (also "Modern Geocentrism") and others to describe the scriptural teaching of a fixed earth where the sun is said to go up (or rise) and go down. This site (archived) has a listing of the many scripture verses speaking of the motion of the sun and moon in relation to the earth.

We applaud those who teach creationism in the face of modern "science".  However most of those creationists do not uphold the scriptural teaching of a fixed earth.

But the old (German) Missouri Synod held up the scripture teaching on this point.  And still does in the writings of C.F.W. Walther and Franz Pieper (Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pg 473).  The Wikipedia article on Modern Geocentrism says "In the United States between 1870 and 1920, for example, various members of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod published articles disparaging Copernican astronomy, and geocentrism was widely taught within the synod during that period."  How the author even knew of the Missouri Synod's teaching makes me wonder that he would call himself a "Lutheran" or even a member of the LC-MS. But his statement is not quite correct on the ending year of 1920 since Franz Pieper taught scriptural "geocentrism" until he died in 1931 and specifically wrote about Copernicus in Lehre und Wehre in November 1926.  And here is what Pieper wrote in 1924 in his Christliche Dogmatik, vol. 1, page 577 (Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, page 473, 472):

• "It is unworthy of a Christian to interpret Scripture, which he knows to be God's own Word, according to human opinions (hypotheses), and that includes the Copernican cosmic system, or to have others thus to interpret Scripture to him."

• "No matter what size, compared with the earth, men may ascribe to sun, moon, and stars, these celestial bodies have no independent history and no independent meaning and function, but their history and significance or function are dependent upon the earth.  These facts are positively taught in Holy Scripture."

I have a note in the margin at this point that Prof. A. C. Repp scoffed at this passage in the July 1964 issue of Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly.  Unfortunately today's LC-MS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) has abandoned it's heritage.

The Wikipedia article continues (see article) :

"However, in the 1902 Concordia Theological Quarterly, Prof. A. L. Graebner claimed that the synod had no doctrinal position on geocentrism, heliocentrism, or any scientific model, unless it were to contradict Scripture. He stated that any possible declarations of geocentrists within the synod did not set the position of the church body as a whole."

This article in the Concordia Theological Quarterly largely defends the position of the Missouri Synod which upholds the divine teaching of scripture.  But it leaves a little to be desired since even the writer of the Wikipedia article thinks the Missouri Synod teaching was ambiguous. Professor A. L. Graebner  in this article attaches the basis of the heliocentric system or Copernican system to an "assumption of millions of years of siderial existence in our universe" (page 42) which excluded the possibility of the creation of the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day of creation. He then dismisses the Copernican system and the heliocentric system on the basis of this assumption of "millions of years" rather than that scripture teaches the primacy of the earth.  But  Franz Pieper and C.F.W. Walther (and Martin Luther), although dismissing the "millions of years" theories, dismissed the Copernican system based on the scriptural teaching of the primacy of the earth over all celestial bodies.

What did Walther teach?  Here is my translation from his German of a review of a new publication in the April 1, 1873 issue of Der Lutheraner magazine, (volume 29 (1872-1873), page 103):

= = = = = = = = = = =

Astronomical discussion about the infallibility of the Copernican solar system. By J. C. W. L., St. Louis, Mo. 1873.

                A little writing of the preceding title has just arisen from our Synod printer.  It is small - it includes only 26 pages in the format of "Lehre und Wehre" - but a gold kernel in the latest literature, that unfortunately! mostly is a rubbish heap.

                As you know, the newer astronomers or stargazers, claim by the Copernican system in which the earth moves around the Sun, that the Bible is thoroughly refuted and overturned according to which the Sun moves around the Earth; and yet, these gentlemen require that Christians now believe as firmly the Copernican system as previously the Bible religion.  Because they say whoever does not belong to the profession of astronomy, has no right to judge about what they teach; it is therefore a real shame that there still are people who are not professional astronomers as they are and yet do not all want to believe their every word.  Through these mighty sayings and bulls of excommunication these unfailing would-be astronomical popes now hunt indeed the people of the world in general into the buck's horn; in order not to fall into the stargazers spell and to be considered enlightened, they recite everything in blind simple faith what these "infallible" popes tell them. They admit patiently that they might not understand astronomy and therefore could not judge it, but if one should hold them to be clever, they should close their eyes delicately and only believe firmly.  But with Christians it is different. So firmly they believe their God at his Word, so oppositely on human concepts are strongly convinced; there they want to be persuaded by irrefutable reasons, otherwise they won't believe it.

                  The pamphlet shows with the title but how little Christians have cause to hold so infallible the Copernican system, as astronomers give it and the would-be enlightened view it.  The author has namely the happy idea to once catechize the astronomers or rather to examine them and, since they are difficult to bring to a response, to get themselves their answer from their own writings.  As it turns out then, that the men themselves in no uncertain terms have to admit that there simply is nothing with the certainty and security of their system, that they themselves do not believe and only demand of the uninitiated belief in their infallibility. One should read the pamphlet, and one will soon be convinced that this really is so. The writer has only asked the questions, the answers are always word for word taken from the writings of astronomers themselves, and describes the place where the answer stands against.

                Whoever wants to be enlightened in the points of the newer solar system should read this pamphlet and he will find full satisfaction. The pamphlet costs 15 cents in hard cover and is handled by our general agent Mr. Barthel.

W.

= = = = = = = = = = =

If the reader of this article is a Christian, know this: the world will constantly assail any faith you have in the Bible by the constant refrain of "millions and billions of years" and the secondary place of the Earth in the universe (as this Wikipedia article states "the Earth does not hold any obvious preferred place within the Solar System").  It will not stop doing this nor will Scripture be changed.  Scripture testifies to this when it says in John 1: 10,11: "... the world knew him not... and his own received him not".  Modern science wants you to believe their theories on the origins of the universe.  But the Bible is true... believe it, in all it's teachings. The sun does rise over the earth and the Son did bring salvation for all.
(see another later post here for more of Walther's teaching on this subject, and modern Lutheran theologian , Matthew Becker's doubt of the Bible teaching.)
[2017-10-02: see this later post publishing an English translation of Lindemann's pamphlet]