Fendt's history of LC–MS: precursor to CHI book on Walkout issues (Part 1 of 3)

      This blog series was prompted when I discovered that the Internet Archive has recently (February 25, 2023) scanned and made available to borrow a book that provides more of the "inside story" of the early downfall of the LC–MS, from the early decades before much of the history presented in Concordia Historical Institute's (CHI, 2024) Rediscovering the Issues Surrounding the 1974 Concordia Seminary Walkout. The 1980 book is The Struggle for Lutheran Unity and Consolidation in the U.S.A. from the Late 1930's to the Early 1970's, by Edward C. Fendt, a professor in the old ALC which merged into today's ELCA. It was written in 1978, 4 years after the 1974 Walkout staged at Concordia Seminary, and was published by the Augsburg Publishing of the old ALC. I have blogged about this book in the past in 2011 (here and here; search "Fendt") but its importance needs to be once again pointed out. It is a good basis and companion for the CHI book released in 2024, 50 years after the 1974 Walkout, and edited by Dr. Ken Schurb. Fendt's book is a good source for those who want to know more of the historical events and people that led up to what Prof. Kurt Marquart referred to as an "Explosion".

      Fendt's book contains accounts of surprising "infighting" within the LC-MS teachers, and of the doctrinal issues, in the following:

Notable Quotes:

83: "If the members present had known how Dr. [Theo.] Graebner felt about the Doctrinal Affirmation they might have called for his resignation as one of the co-editors of the Lutheran Witness."

85: “A Statement” of the 44 signers reprinted

93: "The ALC commissioners declared that we hold to the same truth which they term Objective Justification even though we may prefer such terms as Atonement and Reconciliation." [ALC shows its weakness or even denial of Objective Justification.]

94: "Dr. Fendt: 'It's also a problem of language. The evangelical Pieper becomes cold and didactic in Mueller’s Dogmatics. The only objection the Columbus faculty had to the Doctrinal Affirmation was its poor, archaic English.'" [Fendt labels “evangelical Pieper”!  But he does not call Pieper’s Brief Statement “evangelical”!]

 95: "Matzner [ALC]: We object to 'objective justification’ as you [LC–MS] object to 'intuiti fidei'; to us they are on par." … "[J.H.C.] Fritz: Universal, or objective, justification is the basis for subjective justification." [Thank you Prof. Fritz!! Clear evidence that the ALC erred on the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.]

 

191-2: Fendt, of the ALC, speaks highly of Prof. Martin Franzmann, but that Franzmann was an unhappy man in the LC–MS.

192-193: Fendt: “Dr. Franzmann was committed to look at confessional and synodical statements in the light of the Holy Scriptures, not to look at the Scriptures in the light of confessional or synodical statements.” [See this blog post, Franzmann's conditional confession.”]

 233-239: Prof. Julius Bodensieck, of the old ALC, wrote a venomness essay against inerrancy of Holy Scripture. Yet the LC–MS was in fellowship with the ALC for a time!

235: Bodensieck: "which of the text forms is supposed to be the 'inerrant' one? Is it the 'Received Text' from which Luther translated the New Testament into German, and from which the Authorized Version was made?  Or is it the Hebrew Old Testament in Kittel's edition or Nestle's Greek New Testament text? The usual escape from the dilemma is to retreat behind the original autographic copies of the biblical books and to assert their total inerrancy. But this escape is illusory" [Franz Pieper addressed all these concerns masterfully in his Christian Dogmatics, p. 232 ff.; CSL Prof. Joel Biermann speaks much like Bodensieck.]

236: Bodensieck: "The third term used in the description of the Word of God is 'inerrant'. I have alluded to it above. A few more words are necessary here.  I assume that this term has the purpose here of eliminating the possibility of assuming that any geographical, biological, astronomical, historical statement in the Bible may be in error." [I addressed the "astronomical" in my Copernicanism series.]

237: Bodensieck: "...earmarks of current Fundamentalism." [This was the charge of the liberals in the LC–MS]

237: Bodensieck: "It [inerrancy] is Docetic, in that it denies the reality of the fact that while the Bible is the Word of God it is in every moment also the word of man. [This is the teaching of today's LC–MS.] Such a 'theologia gloriae' endangers the doctrine of the Person of Christ, robs Christianity of its essential historicity, and reduces the Bible to the level of the Koran which is held by Islam to be, in the Fundamentalistic sense, a 'heavenly', suprarational, inerrant book. Luther's statements concerning the Scriptures, it should be remembered, were dynamic-Christological, completely oriented to the mystery of the Incarnation. Did not Christ come into the world in the form of a Servant? And is it not precisely this aspect which needs to be stressed: The Word of God became flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ, and, in the same manner, the Word of God can now, in the Bible, be read in the words and languages of man? [Bodensieck speaks for today’s LC-MS! SCR1886 acknowledges this assertion and completely refutes it!]

238: Bodensieck: "If we argue that the Bible is inspired because it claims inspiredness for itself [B. is confessing that he does not believe the Bible is inspired, as the Apostle Paul does, 2 Tim. 3:16], and that therefore its statements are correct and that therefore we may safely erect our theological systematic superstructure on that basis, we argue in a circle, and it may easily happen [not sure?] that the whole structure collapses because the foundation proved to be untenable, indefensible, and treacherous."

- - - - - - - - -  Cont'd in Part 2  - - - - - - - - -

      Prof. Bodiensieck, although a vehement opponent to the inerrancy of the Bible, was more honorable than those who tried to hide their opposition, like many (most?) in today's LC–MS. As mentioned previously, Herman Sasse also made the false charge of "docetic" against inerrancy. — In the next Part 2…

Table of Contents 

Part 1: Fendt's history of LC–MS: precursor to CHI book on Walkout issues

Part 2:  Behnken, Bohlmann, the Preus cousins

Part 3: Franzmann's & Graebner's halting speech, tears

EC3b: Franzmann's conditional confession; “in the light of Scripture”? (Excursus)

(This blog is being published out of order, but it pertains to an earlier blog in this series)

     This continues from Part EC3a (Table of Contents in Part EC1), a series restoring availability of English translations of several of Walther's convention essays that have seemingly been abandoned by Concordia Publishing House. — Recent readings have brought to light a glaring example of non-confessionalism by one of the leading lights among LC–MS theologians. How I was able to determine this was from reading Walther's highly instructive defense against the German theologian Wilhelm Loehe in the matter of defective forms of "confessionalism". One may read the particular excerpt that brings out Walther's teaching in Part EC3 of this series. At the 1858 Western District convention, Walther identified seven forms of conditional acceptance of the Confessions. The following is the third:

A third kind of conditional recognition of the symbols is when one expresses it in this way: one subscribes to them [Lutheran Confessions] if one only interprets or understands them according to Scripture or correctly. Even the Reformed have declared their willingness to sign the Unaltered Augsburg Confession under this condition. … With such additions, that one wishes to subscribe to the symbols if one may understand them correctly, it cannot of course be said that one may understand them as they read and are really meant, for only a madman can want to demand a different understanding; these additions rather indicate that one cannot accept them as they read, and that one therefore requires to be able to connect with the words of the symbol a meaning which does not lie in them, but which one considers to be the right Biblical one.

Now it may sound nice to promote the idea of evaluating theological writings "according to Scripture". But "confessional statements" are not ordinary writings, they are statements to which true Lutherans subscribe to as their own confession before God. They recognize the Confessions as agreeing with Scripture, and therefore no longer need further "interpretation" or "correct understanding" among Lutherans. Walther has beautifully exposed the error of this conditional recognition. With Walther's instruction, we are ready to judge a well known LC–MS theologian.

    Dr. Martin H. Franzmann († 1976) is routinely referenced and praised among LC–MS pastors and theologians for his knowledge and exposition of Scripture, his hermeneutics. His works were referenced several times in the LC–MS text book Confessing the Gospel. Concordia Publishing House continues to sell 5 of his books. He was deeply involved in the discussions with the old American Lutheran Church (ALC) during the 1960s before leaving the U.S. for England in 1969. A leading theologian of the ALC, Prof. Edward C. Fendt, wrote about these discussions in his historical book The Struggle for Lutheran Unity and Consolidation in the U.S.A. from the Late 1930's to the Early 1970's. Written from the perspective of the opposing body of the LC–MS, it was nevertheless quite informative on the LC–MS theologians who were involved during this controversial period. One of those theologians was Martin Franzmann. And what did Prof. Fendt report of Dr. Franzmann? On p. 192-193, he stated:

“Dr. [Martin] Franzmann was committed to look at confessional…statements in the light of the Holy Scriptures, not to look at the Scriptures in the light of confessional…statements. At times he was initially a minority of one in this respect while serving on the LC-MS Committee on Doctrinal Unity, but with the honest leadership [?] of Drs. [John] Behnken and Oliver Harms it was not too long until Dr. Franzmann spoke for the entire group.”

So we see that while Walther warns against recognizing the Confessions conditionally, or one who "only interprets or understands them according to Scripture", Franzmann did just that. He even convinced all of his committee members and two Synod presidents to follow his position. (Honest leadership?) One could wonder that Fendt did not represent Franzmann's position correctly, but they were co-authors of a 1967 essay, "What Commitment to the 'Sola Gratia' of the Lutheran Confessions Involves", which was published in the Synod's Convention Workbook (download here). Franzmann's conditional attitude toward "confessional statements" does not surprise me as he also reportedly denied the plain meaning of John 10:35.

      What prompted Franzmann to this conditional attitude? It was because he was a closet unionist. A conditional recognition of the Confessions was the position of the opposing ALC (and Prof. Fendt), which was the position of its father Wilhelm Loehe. Walther called out Loehe, in his 1858 Western District convention essay, on his so-called "confessionalism" (again Part EC3):

“In a similar spirit [as the Reformed and Calvin!], a few years ago an entire conference of Lutheran preachers gathered in Fuerth in Bavaria, headed by Pastor Loehe in Neuendettelsau in Bavaria, encouraged our Synod to understand and interpret the Symbols [i.e. 'confessional statements'] according to Scripture.”

Franzmann was following Loehe's work-around of the Confessions. According to Prof. Fendt, Dr. Franzmann's commitment "to look at confessional … statements in the light of the Holy Scriptures" is exactly the same position as what the Reformed, Calvin, and Wilhelm Loehe held. Fendt, Franzmann, and today's LC–MS theologians who follow Franzmann in this regard are exposing themselves and their confession as "quatenus", not in full agreement, instead of "quia", or full agreement. Walther, the far better theologian knew exactly how to spot a less than confessional theologian. 

      Again, this can be somewhat deceptive, because it sounds so nice, because it seems to hold up Scripture. Franzmann's attitude towards Holy Scripture sounds solid. But the problem lies in what "confessional" means. To be a true Lutheran, one confesses that the Book of Concord is Scriptural! To now "look at [or judge] confessional statements" means to reverse one's confession because it calls into question one's own confession. 

      May God help me and the reader to find and confess that the Confessions are the true teaching of Holy Scripture! Amen! (In the next Part EC4 we uncover again Walther's love for the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.)

Walther's hermeneutics essay: 1867 Northern District; Fuerbringer compared (Hrm01)

[2025-04-18: updated links, pages 17-18 & 34]

      While reviewing the convention essays of the old Missouri Synod, I ran across the essay that the Director of Concordia Historical Institute, August Suelflow, had overlooked as being delivered by C. F. W. Walther. As called out on my "Convention Essays" blog, Franz Pieper identified Walther as the uncredited essayist for the 1867 Northern District convention: "Principles of the Lutheran Church on the Interpretation of Scripture". I had originally labeled this essay as addressing the subject of "exegesis", but after researching the terminologies of this field, I discovered that it may be more appropriately labeled as dealing with Biblical Hermeneutics. After realizing that this was one of the essays on my "Convention Essays" blog which did not offer an English translation, I decided to put the effort into getting it properly translated. 

 

    C. F. W. Walther                                L. Fuerbringer
       orthodox                                        mediating?

    Judging by the popularity of my upload of Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer's Theological Hermeneutics, it would seem that Walther's essay will have great interest for anyone interested in what was taught by the old Missouri Synod, especially by Walther himself. Of course Walther dealt with this subject in other writings, e.g. his True Visible Church book, his edited Baier-Walther Compendium, and his many writings in the publications Der Lutheraner and Lehre und Wehre.

      A casual comparison between Walther's essay and Fuerbringer's booklet seems to indicate that the latter is more technical, and even relied on unorthodox German theologians: Schleiermacher, Cremer, and Zezschwitz. Walther uses no Greek or Hebrew words. Also while Fuerbringer mentions the errors of the "Romanists" and the "Reformed", Walther calls out these fellowships, the "Papists", "Reformed" and "enthusiasts", nearly 10 times as often. Walther's essay includes many quotes from the Confessions, Luther, Gerhard, Pfeiffer, Baier, etc. Fuerbringer only references his sources but does not quote them. He includes no references to the great John Gerhard. — Overall, while Fuerbringer does make good use of Luther's writings and the Lutheran Confessions, yet his technical treatment and weak statements leaves one wondering if he was inclined to take a mediating position. He used statements that opened the door for later "Walkout" sympathizing LC-MS theologians like Profs. Robert H. Smith and Norman Habel. 

      Not so with C. F. W. Walther:

Page 9: "For the papacy is also a vain enthusiasm." 

10: "The enthusiasts falsely refer to the passage: 'The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.' (2 Cor. 3:6)"

13: "The papists' theology teaches that we must doubt grace…"

25: "diabolical doctrines of the pope and the papists"

Other notable quotes from this essay:

8: "Everyone must have divine certainty from Holy Scripture itself, not standing on the light of nature, but on the light of the Holy Spirit."

9: "…the Holy Spirit has placed the words in such a way that the meaning intended by Him can be recognized from them. — It is on such certainty of the Holy Spirit that a Christian bases his consolation in mortal distress."

11: "No man has the right to interpret Scripture, but only the Holy Spirit."

12: "The Lutheran Church has confessed that the Pope [not just the Papacy] of Rome is the Antichrist. Anyone who does not believe this is not a Lutheran." [Can we not conclude that some theologians in the LC-MS are not Lutheran?]

17-18: "God has never directed us to tradition, but to the Scriptures alone." [Against Prof. Joel Biermann's teaching on the place of "tradition" in theology.]

19: "The inner light of which the enthusiasts, especially the Quakers, boast is the devil's light."

20: "What follows from the Scriptures is what it says. The Bible does not contain the word "triune", nor does it say "three persons", and yet Christians believe and confess it… Almost all doctrines of Christianity are the result of such conclusions." [Against the revered LC-MS theologian Martin Franzmann who said that there are no scripture passages clearly establishing the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.]

22: "…not to doubtful passages, e.g. … to John 6, for there is no trace of Holy Communion."  [Against Prof. David Scaer]

25: Luther: "But if any of them should challenge you, saying, 'We must have the interpretation of the Fathers, that the Scriptures are dark,' you should answer that it is not true.… They speak such things only to lead us out of the Scriptures and exalt themselves as masters over us, that we should believe their dream sermons." [Against Prof. Joel Biermann of CSL.]

28: Luther: "the Scriptures are their own light. This is how it is when Scripture interprets itself."

30: "the newer theologians… have invented a completely new doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which they base on John 6, but which does not speak of the Lord's Supper." [Against Prof. David Scaer]

34: "Even those who do not know the basic languages can be divinely certain that their German Bible is the Word of God, because they receive the testimony of the Holy Spirit through it." [Not spoken of by Fuerbringer. See Pieper's quote of this in  C.D. 1, p. 348]

39: Gerhard: "Allegories, tropologies, and anagogies are not different senses, but different inferences from that one sense" and Pfeiffer: "for not to mean merely one thing is to mean nothing certain".

40: "A signpost must show so clearly that only one way can be understood. The newer theologians claim that the Scriptures have a multiple meaning… But no Christian can comfort himself with this, because he must be continually in fear as to what is the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit."

41: "There is no second sense of the word in Scripture, only of things."

41: "Even if Luther almost always gives a secret interpretation of the Gospel in his Church Postils, he was too fond of the weakness of his time, and no one is entitled to follow him in this. The listeners demanded it; but since Luther spoke of nothing more than faith and love in these secret interpretations, the listeners themselves finally grew tired of it, which is why we find nothing more of the secret interpretations in the House Postils, which were written later." [That Walther is a Lutheran theologian of the first rank is exhibited here as he calls out Luther's use of "secret interpretations", but shows these came from the early Luther's Church Postils, which the later, stronger Luther outgrew with his House Postils. (Ref. Klug, House Postils, "Preface", p. 13) An analogy to this is when Luther outgrew his respect for the Pope, and later identified him as the very Antichrist.]

49: "A Christian has to do only with those things that are so certain that he can live and die on them."

      The following is the English translated file that utilized the DeepL Translator as its basis, and was somewhat polished. It includes numerous hyperlinks for navigation and to its references for immediate access, especially for the Lutheran Confession (Triglotta), and Luther's Works (St. Louis Edition and American Edition):

A file without highlights may be directly accessed >> here <<; the German text >> here <<.

      May this uncovered essay of Walther provide readers with the defense and comfort they need for their faith, so that the the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures are so certain for them that they "can live and die on them". Amen!

[This is the first in a series on Lutheran Hermeneuts, Table of Contents here, in Part Hrm02.]

Schrift 17: #13 Even if cannot understand…; Walther's Warning; Franzmann's smokescreen, LC-MS questions Scripture

[2019-02-18: added missing underlining]
      This continues from Part 16 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. — Walther reaches the last of his Thirteen Theses, his testimony for the Lutheran Church that was in sore need of a clear confession of Luther's clear teaching. And later below, to show how this Doctrine of Scripture is still a burning issue in the LC-MS…  But for now, let us first listen to Martin Luther… and C.F.W. Walther's great warning:

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

Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 16)

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, March, p. 75-76, "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

XIII. Even where one cannot understand the Scriptures, one must consider and treat them with sacred awe and confess one's ignorance.

“Therefore we should not allow the statements about Christ [of the Old Testament], concerning whom Jacob began to speak, to be torn apart. He stated that Christ would be the Lord of the heathen and that peoples throughout the world would listen to Him. Let us cling to the resolution to speak about Christ and not invent a hysteron proteron (foreign figures) as an appendage. But if understanding fails us, let us leave the office of instructor to the Holy Spirit. Only let us not approve of that confusion of the text. For I shall prefer to confess that I do not understand it.” (Genesis, 1545. II, 2912-2913 § 176 [StL 2, 1978 § 176; LW 8, 247)

Finally, we repeat Luther's saying here: “For God’s Word is not to be toyed with. If you cannot understand it, take off your hat to it.” (Exposition of a Passage from Jeremiah 23, 1526. VI, 1396 §41 [StL 6, 872-3 § 41; NOT in LW]) — [see also Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 57]

Thus we have hereby presented Luther's doctrine of inspiration in his own words from the most varied periods of his life and work. Hereby compare, among others, Luthardt's  and Cremer's relative judgment. [see parts 2 and 7 above] Luthardt dares to write, that the (Page 76) accusing of Holy Scripture of many errors thus represents Prof. Volck's “the truly religious view in the sense of Luther”!  Cremer asserts with Luthardt that Luther believes so little in the inspiration of the Scriptures that he knew rather to speak “of hay, straw, and stubble, which the prophets have lost in their own good thoughts”. In fact, both Luthardt and Cremer want to understand thus of the prophets, whose writings constitute a major part of the Holy Scriptures!  

As little as it is to honor these learned, even Lutheran, theologians, it is enough that they hereby reveal how little they are at home in Luther's writings and how little they are reliable in their historical statements even on such important questions, this is by no means the most terrible thing. Sup­pose that – it pains us to write it down – Luther actually regarded the Bible as a book containing all manner of error, out of which only the scholars could lift the kernel of divine truth, that position would rob the Bible Christians only of Luther. But it is a most horrible thing that the theologians of the Modernist faith, including the Modernist Lutherans (without exception, it would seem!), declare it to be a fact no longer debatable that the Scriptures contain, besides the 'good thoughts' of their authors, also 'hay, straw, and stubble,' which 'the fire consumes.'  That stand robs the Bible Christians not only of a man whom they had heretofore regarded as a faithful witness of the truth, but it robs the Bible Christians of the Bible itself, a lamp to their feet and a light on their path forever, their rod and their staff in the dark valley of affliction, in short, of God's Word, their consolation in the terrors of sin, their hope in the darkness of their last hour! [ref. this blog post, part 3a; Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pg 306]

Luther writes in his Great Confession of  the sacrament on the Alloeosis of Zwingli: "Beware, beware, I say, of the alloeosis! For it is a devil's mask, for at last it manufactures such a Christ after whom I certainly would not be a Christian; namely, that henceforth Christ should be no more and do no more with His sufferings and life than any other mere saint. For if I believe this that only the human nature has suffered for me, then Christ is to me a poor Savior, then He Himself indeed needs a Savior. In a word, it is unspeakable what the devil seeks by the alloeosis.” (Cited in the Formula of Concord, Art. VIII, p. 682, § 40 [BookOfConcord.org, Triglotta p. 1029])  We must say of this so-called ‘divine-human nature of Scripture,’ as the term is understood by modern theologians:

Beware, beware, I say, of this 'divine-human' Scripture. It is a devil's mask, for at last it manufactures such a Bible according to which I certainly would not care to be a Bible Christian; namely, that henceforth the Bible should be no more than any good book, a book which I would have to read with constant scrutiny in order not to be led into error. For if I [Page 77] believe that the Bible also contains errors, it is to me no longer a touchstone, but itself stands in need of one. In a word, it is unspeakable what the devil seeks with this 'divine­-human' Scripture.”

We know well what awaits our seemingly excessive explanation. One will despise it and deride as a sign of a zeal not according to knowledge, if not worse. But woe to us if we are here, where it is not even just this or that doctrine of the Scriptures, but where it says: “If the foundations be destroyed” (Ps. 11:3), “Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof” (Ps. 137:7), if we are silent even though we do not belong to the scholars but want to be Christians! Then the stones would have to cry out. — God have mercy upon His poor Christendom in this last age of distress and danger [ref. this blog].         W[alther].

= = = = = = = = = =   End of essay. Series continues in Part 18  = = = = = = = = = = =

For those who want to now read Walther's essay without my commentary and polemics, it is available to view directly >>>  HERE  <<<.

Luther and Walther teach: 

Holy Scripture is Divine only, NOT “divine-human”. 

Sola Scriptura!

      I have worked over a period of 6 months preparing this series – translating, researching sources, preparing blog posts.  But all my work was energized by Walther's passionate plea to essentially go “Back to the Bible”.  Walther not only taught this, he preached it.  I would end this series by quoting from one of Prof. Manteufel's references using Pastor Joel Baseley's translation from Walther's Occasional Sermons (Casual Predigton), p. 139:

“O precious book! O book of books! You are a still pool of water on earth in which are reflected all the stars in the unseen heavens. You are the comforting letter from our eternal home, sent to us in this foreign land. You are the key of heaven for weary pilgrims who wander through this world filled with error, doubt, sins, fear and need. You are the Word of our God, our heavenly Father!” — C.F.W. Walther

      Andrew Dickson White called Walther's Missouri Synod a "late survival of an ancient belief based upon text-worship".  Would to God that LC-MS preachers preached like this!  Walther attacked the famous "Lutheran" theologians of Germany for their unbelief.  Today, he would be attacking the teachers of the LC-MS.

Franzmann's (& LC-MS) “Smokescreen” ("Read More »" disabled)

      My hope that the LCMS will come back, Back to the Bible, was recently demolished (again) by the upcoming CPH book Breath of God Yet Work of Man.  This book is promoted as the first in the series entitled "Lutheran Leadership Development Program" (LLDP) and promoted (Archive; also here) for the "Lutheran Churches of the West" who

"are exploring if the ILC can be a welcome home for them. Other church bodies in the West, who have been persecuted for not conforming to the views of Western society, likewise are seeking refuge in the ILC. In order to help the ILC meet these opportunities… the establishment of the Lutheran Leadership Development Program (LLDP)." (ILC 26th Conference Workbook, 25-28 September 2018)"

Gen. 1-3: 'symbolic'
LC-MS model theologian

While the stated purpose of this book is refreshing, yet rather than follow Martin Luther, it follows Martin Franzmann (Look Inside p. 7) as its model theologian for "Inerrancy", and so establishes again that its confession is weak at best, false at worst. How can this be since Franzmann explicitly said of the 'verbally inspired, infallible Word' in his noted essay "Seven Theses…"(p. 244): "This is Biblical and Lutheran and not to be surrendered."? It is because Franzmann also defended the following position on Genesis 1-3 (p. 22) 

"[Genesis 1-3] in general is a ‘symbolic’ or concrete representation of divine truths concerning the fall of the first man."

Franzmann's defense of a “symbolic” Genesis 1-3 only threw fuel on the fire of doubt in the LC-MS (and in me 45 years ago) about the truthfulness of this clear account of the Bible.  Franzmann's "defense" of the "verbally inspired, infallible Word" appears to be actually using what Dr. Armand Boehme calls a "Smokescreen Vocabulary". — The LC-MS standpoint is further confirmed in this new book in several places available for public viewing:

1. in the Foreword to this book (Look Inside, p. xviii) by Dr. Lawrence Rast Jr. who characterizes its "narrative" as giving "consideration of the nature and character of Scripture… to capture its divine and human elements".  
2. On p. 384 (Look Inside): "one might ponder if Genesis 1… may have a deeper, Eastern meaning." [Yet the LC-MS claims it holds to the Brief Statement, § 5.]
3. p. 385 (Look Inside): "Lutherans need not fear that Luther's hermeneutics are somehow sectarian or contrived." [Why would Lutherans fear this?... maybe the authors do fear this?]
4. p. 431 (Look Inside): "You can trust a physicist" ["Science" wins over a clear passage of Scripture, even while they claim to defend the clarity of Scripture, p. 238 f. etc.]

The title of this book says it all: the Bible is a "Work of Man".  —  If that is not enough evidence of the LC-MS teaching of a "divine-human" Scripture, one of the chapters in the new CPH textbook on Systematic Theology Confessing the Gospel (Look Inside, p. xiv-xv) is entitled:

“The Attributes of Scripture: A Human Book”

      Enough of today's LC-MS!  Just listen to Martin Luther… and C.F.W. Walther.  The next concluding post (Part 18) is to aid those who would do that… and so be Lutheran.

Schrift 8: Thesis 1: “All Scripture of Holy Ghost” says Luther, not by LCMS/CTCR, Franzmann, Voelz, Paul L. Maier

[2019-05-30: Appendix II added below on Paul L. Maier; 2019-02-18: minor edits to bottom p. 38; 2019-01-01: added section in red below on Prof. Voelz]
      This continues from Part 7 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on  the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. — Walther has been noted for his use of "Theses" (or Axioms) in several of his writings.  Now he begins his final published list of "Theses" asserting the authority and inspiration of Holy Scripture. These may be seen as Luther's grand building blocks for the true Lutheran theologians who would follow him.

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

Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets [] and in red font are my additions. Underlining and bold follow Walther.
(continued from Part 7)

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, February 1886, p. 36-38: "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

I. All of Holy Scripture is a work of the Holy Spirit.

On the words of David: “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue” (2 Sam. 23:2), Luther writes: “Here David begins to speak too strangely and too loftily for me. God grant that I may understand at least a bit of it in spite of that. For here he begins to talk about the exalted Holy Trinity, of the divine essence. In the first place, he mentions the Holy Spirit. To Him he ascribes all that is foretold by the prophets. And to this and to similar verses St. Peter refers in 2 Peter 1:21, where he says: “No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man; but moved by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.” Therefore we sing in the article

(page 37)

of the Creed 1)  concerning the Holy Spirit: “Who spake by the prophets.” Thus we attribute to the Holy Spirit all of Holy Scripture.” (Interpretation of David's Last Words, 1543, III, 2796. f.; [StL 3, 1889 f., § 9, LW 15, p. 275])        

“Here also the text of Daniel (7:13-14) gives powerfully the article of the deity in three Persons and of the humanity of the Son; for there must be another person who gives, and another who receives it. For the Father gives the everlasting power to the Son, and the Son has it from the Father, and all this from eternity; otherwise it would not be an eternal power; so it is the Holy Ghost who speaking through Daniel. For such a high secret thing no one could know where the Holy Ghost did not reveal it through the prophets; as often said above, that the Scriptures are spoken by the Holy Spirit.” (Ibid., III, 282l § 42; [StL 3, 1907 f., § 42; LW 15, p. 291-292; WA 54, p. 48)

To the words: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it” (Deuteronomy 4:2), Luther notes : “Moses here says to the people, not to God: ‘Ye shall not add, ... ’  etc. For who doubts that God, as the time demanded, could or would do so?  For, whether He adds or subtracts, He Himself always remains true; … So also all the prophets, if they have learned something other than Moses, so God has revealed it to them, just as to Moses, or as Peter says 2 Peter 1:21: ‘Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’”  (Lectures on Deuteronomy, 1525. III, 2080, § 22; StL 3, 1410 ; LW 9, p. 52 “For who doubts…”; WA 14 586: Latin text) [NB: Caemmerer translated LW 9.]

“The Psalter ought to be a precious and beloved book, if for no other reason than this: it promises Christ’s death and resurrection so clearly—and pictures his kingdom and the condition and nature of all Christendom—that it might well be called a little Bible. In it is comprehended most beautifully and briefly everything that is in the entire Bible. It is really a fine enchiridion or handbook. In fact, I have a notion that the Holy Spirit wanted to take the trouble Himself to compile a short Bible and book of examples of all Christendom or all saints, so that anyone who could not read the whole Bible would here have anyway almost an entire summary of it, comprised in one little book.” (“Preface to the Psalter”, 1531 . XIV, 23. f. § 4; StL 14, 20, § 4; LW 35, p. 254.)

“You can not prove it from Scripture that Peter is called the Pope at all. This explanation is correct, for we are sure that it has not been devised by man but has been drawn from God’s Word. Now what is written and proclaimed in the prophets, says Peter, has not been invented

——————

1) See the Nicene Creed in the Book of Concord, Müller, p. 30. § 7 [BookOfConcord.org,  Triglotta p. 30, p. 7 § 7].

(page 38)

or devised by man; but the pious and holy men have said it as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (Sermon of 2 Peter, 1524. IX, 858. f. § 45; StL 9, 1362-1363, § 45; a close proximate is in LW 30, p 167.) [see addendum below, Marquart’s use of Luther on 1 Pe. 3:15]

To the words: “In the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God” (Lutherbibel Ps. 40:8-9 [KJV Ps. 40:7-8]), Luther adds: “The spirit speaks as if He knew of no book (even though the world is full of them), except only this book of Sacred Scripture. . .  This is the book of the Holy Spirit, in which one must seek and find Christ.” (“Exposition of Many Beautiful Passages of Holy Scripture, which Luther Wrote to Some in Their Bibles”. IX, 1364-1365 [StL 9, p. 1775; not in LW])

“Moses is the source from which all the holy prophets and also the apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, extracted divine wisdom. This being the case, we shall not live up to our calling better and in greater harmony with God’s will than by leading our followers to this source and showing them in our own way the seeds of divine wisdom which the Holy Spirit, through Moses, has sown in such a manner that neither reason nor the power of human nature, if it does not possess the Holy Spirit, can see or understand them.” (“Lectures on Psalm 90”, 1534. V, 1081; [StL 5, p. 733; LW 13, p. 75; WA 403 484;)

“We censure the doctrines of men not because men have spoken them, but because they are lies and blasphemies against the Scriptures. And the Scriptures, although they too are written by men, are neither of men nor from men but from God.” (“Avoiding the Doctrines of Men”, 1522. XIX, 739 § 66 [StL 19, p. 621 § 66; LW 35, p. 153; WA 10-2 p. 92].)

“In this passage the Holy Spirit (Gen. 12:11-12) provides instruction about home life when he relates that Abraham spoke so amicably to Sarah. In the first place, he entreats her; in the second place, he adds those words about her beauty.” (“Lectures on Genesis”, 1536-1545, I, 1197 § 210 [StL 1, p. 794 § 210; LW 2, p. 296].) 1)   

——————

= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 9  = = = = = = = = = = =

The last emphasized quote of Luther above presents a good opportunity to display a rather stark contrast between Luther's teaching and that of the CTCR (Commission on Theology and Church Relations) of the LCMS.  Even today, the CTCR is still officially publishing an article of Prof. Martin H. Franzmann († 1976), “Seven Theses on Reformation Hermeneutics” (first published CTM 1969, Archive), that makes the following statement under Thesis VII (emphasis mine):

“… the overwhelming divinum and the tough humanum of Scripture”.

Franzmann was (and is) highly regarded by both the so-called "moderates" and the "conservatives" within the LCMS.  But his words (and the officially published words of today's CTCR) are clearly refuted by... Martin Luther, who said 

❝the Scriptures… are from God❞.

The current Wikipedia article on Franzmann says "he was notable for his traditional stance on Biblical inerrancy and inspiration..."  But we see from his statements and writings that this assertion is at least questionable. Franzmann is also known as a hymnist – two of his hymn titles speak of the "Word".  In these titles, could he have meant "Preach You the (tough humanum) Word" and "Thy Strong (tough humanum) Word"?  As an author, maybe Franzmann really meant as a title of one of his books The (tough humanum) Word of the Lord Grows:A First Historical Introduction to the New Testament? — The most appropriate description of Prof. Franzmann would be that he was a "mediating" theologian, and perhaps the most confusing theologian for Lutherans in the last 70 years. I may have more to say on Franzmann in a later installment.

- - - - - - - - - -  2019-01-01: Appendix I - - - - - - - - - - - - 

To confirm that the LCMS is today teaching the "tough humanum of Scripture", Prof. James Voelz of Concordia Seminary in his book What Does This Mean? stated the following, p. 242:

“...one cannot become 'Docetist' on this matter: the Scriptures still are products of human authors writing from a particular perspective at a particular point in time.”

What Prof. Voelz asserts here is what German theology asserted in Walther's time and is exactly what Martin Luther (and the 1886 Synodical Conference) defended against.

- - - - - - - - - -  2019-05-30: Appendix II - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paul L. Maier, son of Walter A. Maier, in a Lutheran Forum essay "Bohlmann and the 44: A Response" February 1996 p. 20 said: "…some in Missouri overemphasize the divine aspect of the Old and New Testaments … such overemphasis courts the danger of bibliolatry".  Maier clearly placed himself in the LC-MS that long ago overturned Luther and Walther.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      This installment ends with the reference to Walther's footnote #1.  And oh!... is it a major polemical footnote against German Theology!... spanning across 3 pages, in the next Part 9.  —

[The "Read more »" section below publishes an excerpt of Prof. Kurt Marquart’s use of Luther on 1 Pe. 3:15]