M12: Quenstedt & Calvin tell the truth about M.; do Dingel & Kolb on Melanchthon & Leipzig Interim?

[2024-07-19: added another quote of Dr. Kolb on the Leipzig Interim; 2023-06-18: added note on Dr. Dingel below in red text.]

       This continues from Part 11 (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 now brings out the unsettling ambiguity in Melanchthon's writings after the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, and Luther's corrective counsel to him. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 336-337 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 12 of 28  - - - - - - -

As early as 1530, Melanchthon, as we have already seen, was guilty of using ambiguity to establish peace. [See above Part 8, p. 332 ff. above, Baumgartner] Among other things, he himself wrote to Luther on August 22: “Eck sneered at the word 'alone' [sola], if we say that men are justified by faith alone; but he did not condemn the matter, saying it was offensive to the ignorant. For I forced him to confess that righteousness is rightly attributed by us to faith.  He (LuW 337) wanted us to write: that we are justified by grace and faith; I did not resist, [“non repugnavi”] but that foolish man does not understand the word ‘grace’.” (II, 299. f.  [StL 16, 1401-1402, #1057]) To this news of the foul peace Luther answered him: "You write that Eck was compelled by you to confess that we are justified by faith; would to God, you would have compelled him not to lie. (Luther’s Letters, de Wette. IV, 145; [StL 16, 1402 #1676; not in old  series Am. Ed.]) *) 

——————                                                                                 

*) [Johannes] Quenstedt writes: "When, after the delivery of the Augsburg Confession at the Imperial Diet of 1530, a settlement of the points of contention between the princes and theologians of both parts was negotiated from August 16 to 22, it pleased Melanchthon to leave that word 'grace' in its ambiguity, that he and his comrades could take and interpret it for the mere affect of divine benevolence, but Eck and his comrades, as usual with them, for virtuous qualities, which were poured into men by the benevolence of God, as the principal cause; which meaning does not prevent man from obtaining salvation through merit, as the secondary cause, which would be infused into him by God out of his good will, as the primary cause. In such ambiguities Philip was extremely pleased, as can be seen from his letter of August 22. But Luther disliked this ‘wickedness’ (Ephes. 4:14) from the beginning; hence he wrote a reply to Melanchthon on August 25th.”. (Theol. did.-pol. II, 770)  

In 1539 Calvin wrote to Farell: 

“I sent him (Melanchthon) a few articles in which I had briefly summed up the sum of the matter.  He himself agrees with these without contradiction, but he admits that in that part there were some who demanded something more crass, and with such rigidity that I do not say, tyranny, that for a long time it was to be feared that they saw him alienated from their opinion. Though he does not think that there is a friendly agreement, he wishes that this unity, whatever it may be, be cultivated until the Lord will have led us on both sides to unity in His truth. As for himself, have no doubt that he believes as we do.” (Calvin. epp. p. 24) 

The consequence of his dissimulation towards his opponents was, then, that they took him completely for their side, far from it, that he, as he undoubtedly intended, at least at that time, to have brought them closer to the truth through the same. [i.e. opponents misread M. at that time]

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 13  - - - - - - - - - -

The time in 1530 at which Luther had to warn Melanchthon about his ambiguity in the meaning of the word "grace" is critical in understanding Reformation history. — In the next blog post we present Excursus 1 on the testimony of Martin Chemnitz pertinent to Walther's points about Melanchthon.  Then in Part 13…

- - - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Drs. Dingel & Kolb:   - - - - - - - - -

      In the preceding Part 11, we saw indisputable testimony of the differing natures of Melanchthon and Luther.  But what about their doctrine?  What do modern historians conclude about Melanchthon's theology? Dr. Irene Dingel, is a frequent associate of Dr. Robert Kolb in church historical literature.  She judged, in her 2008 essay "Culture of Controversy" in editor Kolb's book Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 1550-1675, (p. 22, emphasis mine): 

"In contrast to the Augsburg Interim, this Leipzig “alternative” [i.e. Leipzig Interim] preserved evangelical doctrine but reflected some medieval Catholic practices in ceremony and custom." 

Dr. Dingel makes no mention of the actual wording on Justification, and it's ambiguity, in the Leipzig Interim, and only gives her opinion that it "preserved evangelical doctrine". That is not church history, but her opinion. We saw above that Melanchthon even exhibited this same ambiguity 18 years earlier in 1530. (Dingel also makes no mention of Melanchthon's letter to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548.) [2023-06-18: Dr. Dingel made the same erroneous judgment in her essay "Melanchthon and the Establishment of Confessional Norms" in the 2012 book Philip Melanchthon: Theologian in Classroom, Confession, and Controversy., p. 163: "…the article on justification which Melanchthon had drawn up in the 'Leipzig Interim' preserved Evangelical teaching."]

      Dr. Robert Kolb, in his 2001 book Sources and Contexts, stated the following on the "Leipzig Interim" p. 183: 

“However, the statement of the final draft regarding justification, … contained ambiguous language regarding the doctrine [of Justification]. In fact, parts of it had been borrowed directly from the Augsburg Interim.”

[2024-07-19:] Then in his Kolb/Wengert version of the Book of Concord (p. 563), he said the following about the reference to the "Interim" in Article III of the Formula of Concord:

“Although the Augsburg Interim, with its doctrine of double justification, is probably meant here, the “Leipzig Interim’s" article on justification had been fiercely attacked by the Gnesio-Lutherans for its formulations that seemed to compromise the Lutheran understanding of salva­tion 'by grace alone' and 'through faith alone.'”

Kolb's reporting differs from that of his associate Dr. Dingel who makes no mention of the "ambiguous language". (Why does Dr. Kolb join his histories with Dr. Dingel's?) But even Kolb avoids spelling out the actual "ambiguous language" (Sources and Contexts, p. 185): “the merciful God draws… (men) in such a manner that their will cooperates, if they are of the age of reason.” That  "ambiguous language" fits well with the papist teaching, if not outright Synergism. — But even Dr. Kolb's weak defense of the doctrine of Justification, if one can call it that, overturns the judgment of Dr. Dingel's non-defense at this critical point, a point of "terrible pressure" according to Dr. Rosenbladt. (Where now is Kolb's claim of "much greater precision"?) This disqualifies Dingel, (perhaps even Kolb) as a truly Lutheran theologian, not to mention that she has no Scriptural basis (jure divino) for her teaching position in the Church as a woman. [1 Tim. 2:12, blog post here] — And what about Dr. Kolb, who in his "objectivity" makes himself suspect in this matter, for in his own 2005 Bound Choice book, he speaks of the "Leipzig Interim" (p. 106) as the "effort to present an official Saxon policy that seemed to comply with the catholicizing Augsburg Interim, such words appeared to be a perfidious betrayal." The same was true in his 2012 History where he avoids stating this unequivocally, only saying (p. 178) that "this doctrine was ambiguously stated according to its critics". Is he a critic of the "ambiguous" language in the "Leipzig Interim" or not, i.e. is he Lutheran or not? (It seems he has put his Lutheran "bias" too far onto the shelf.)

      Dr. Kolb strangely never mentions the name of Carlowitz (see Part 11) in all his chief books in recent decades, but he did mention it in an October 1997 Concordia Journal article on Melanchthon, p. 310: 

"To be a colleague of Luther's was, of course, not an easy task. It was like being harnessed to a dynamo. Melanchthon himself complained about living under the burden of servitude to Luther. (fn#7: In a letter to Christoph von Carlowitz, 28.4.1548, Corpus Reformatorum, VI:880)"  

Even though Kolb did not use a pejorative term in 1997 against Luther, he came close, giving no rebuttal to Melanchthon's complaint. (He did call Luther "overheated, overblown, harsh, and petulant" in 2012, p. 155; [2023-05-15: Löscher's judgment is the opposite of Dr. Kolb - see Part 11]) Why did Kolb not mention this "servitude" letter to Carlowitz in his subsequent history books? Why did he not point out how this letter gave aid to the opponents of true Lutheranism? Is he justifying Melanchthon's charge against Luther? Was he seeking favor with today's Melanchthon defenders? (Maybe Kolb does not want to be "harnessed to a dynamo.") And this report is hardly an improvement over Dr. Green's omission of Carlowitz's name because the significance of Carlowitz is that he was an opponent of the expelled Elector John Frederick, and a follower of Erasmus, an opponent of Luther. Melanchthon was complaining of his dissatisfaction with Luther not to friends of true Lutheranism, but to a foe.  Why do all these modern theologians avoid reporting about this if it is not embarrassing for their defense of the legacy of Melanchthon?… or not embarrassing for their so-called "objectivity"?

      The true church historian in this matter was not Drs. Green, or Kolb, or Dingel, but Prof. F. Bente who reported (p. 99 or here) of the Leipzig Interim that "Even the Lutheran sola (sola fide, by faith alone) is omitted in the article of justification." — We will cover the doctrine of Justification in more detail in a future post. But we reinforce Bente's (and Walther's) history of Melanchthon with a refreshingly clear testimony from Martin Chemnitz in Excursus 1.

Fundament 8: Synergism 2– foundation abandoned; Grace; Erwin Kolb's confession, ‘But I have to believe, don’t I?’

      This continues from Part 7 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the foundation of the Christian faith ("Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens"). — The matter of sola gratia involves perhaps the most uncomfortable aspect for us sinners – what Luther calls the “the sorrowful, secret trick” of… synergism.  Synergism is the antithesis of "Grace", and there was no better teacher of Grace in the 20th century than… Pieper.

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

Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Pieper's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] is mine.

Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens.

The Foundation of the Christian Faith.

[by President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary; continued from Part 7 - page 102]

What, we ask once again, becomes of the foundation of the Christian faith with synergism? Through synergism in every degree, no matter whether it transfers much or little or very little to man for the attainment of salvation, the foundation of the Christian faith is not only partially, but completely abandoned. God's saving grace in Christ is not a divisible greatness. “Gratia non est gratia ullo modo, si non gratis datur omni modo.” And there is no Christian faith that does not rely entirely, but only partly, on God's grace. “Whenever the Scripture speaks of faith, it means faith built on grace.” 43) In particular, the foundation of the Christian faith is completely abandoned even if someone ascribes a different behavior and a lesser guilt to himself in a comparison with other people. He places himself eo ipso in the class of the Pharisees and thus occupies a position that lies outside the kingdom of grace. [page 103]

————— 

43) Apol. M. 97, 55. [Trigl. 135 ff., § 55, BoC here]

—————

The Pharisee, who thinks he is better than the tax collector before God, goes down to his house unjustified. (Luke 18:9-14) Luther well expressed this most powerfully when he said: 45)  Christ “forbids you to rise above any whore though you were equal to Abraham, David, Peter or Paul”. Whoever nevertheless does it is on the way to becoming a last from a first. A Christian may well have thoughts of self-exaltation as a result of the evil flesh still living in him, but he “spits them out like devil's garbage,” as Walther used to express himself roughly. The disaster is quite horrible if someone cancels the “There is no difference” (Romans 3:24) and thinks he is better than others before God. This was the national sin of carnal Israel, whereby it rose above the Gentiles and excluded itself from the kingdom of God. (Matt. 8:11-12) The same sin stirred up among the Gentile Christians, when they themselves also showed a tendency to rise above the Jews, and said: “The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.” (Rom. 11:19)  But Paul warned and said to the Gentile Christians, “Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” [Rom. 11:20-22] 

Luther calls the thoughts according to which someone seems better or less guilty before God in comparison with others “the sorrowful, secret trick” through which even “great saints” have fallen. “Behold how Saul fell! How he dropped David! How Peter had to fall! How many disciples fell upon Pauli!” 

“Did not the Pope have the same fate, since he did not mean otherwise with his own, for he was the governor of God and the neighbor of all, did he also talk the world into it? But in the same he became governor of the devils, and of the farthest places of God, that no man under the sun should have raged and ravaged against God and his Word. And yet he saw not the abominable treachery: for he was sure, and was not afraid of this subtle, sharp, high, excellent judgment: 'The first are the last. For it is the very deepest in the heart that hits, the spiritual arrogance of one's own, which also considers itself the first in poverty, dishonour, misfortune, yes, then most of all.” 

And what Luther warns others, he also says to himself and to his own. He adds: “Therefore it is also necessary to preach this Gospel [on Sunday Septuagesima] in our times to those who now know the gospel, to me [page 104]

————— 

45) St. L. XI, 515. [§ 14; not in Am. Ed.; Lenker v. 11, p. 112, § 14]

—————

and my kind, who can teach and master the whole world and pay attention to it, we who are nearest and have eaten the Spirit of God clean with feathers and bones.” 49) According to this, the harmfulness of synergism is to be assessed. Because it has made its slogan to be betterment and lesser guilt in comparison with others, it thus withdraws the foundation of the Christian faith, which “builds on pure grace”. Synergism in any form is mistaken in a primary fundamental article. 

But then there can be no Christians among the synergists! And we would also have to, for example, deny the Christian faith to the later Melanchthon. The possibility that those whom we have to classify as synergists nevertheless stand in the Christian faith lies in the fact that they do not believe in their heart and before God that which their mouth speaks and their hand writes. There are such cases. We call this “the happy inconsistency” according to common usage. Thus the newer theologian Frank (Erlangen) judges with reference to the later Melanchthon that he himself had not believed for his person what he taught from the lectern and wrote publicly. 50) We agree with this judgment of Frank. Luther also assumes a “happy inconsistency”. On the one hand Luther teaches very firmly that synergism in every form and to every degree prevents the emergence of the Christian faith and, if it later creeps in, brings with it the falling out of faith. On the other hand, Luther also points out that practice can well be better than theory. 

-------------- 

49) St. L. XI, 513-514. [not in old series Am. Ed.; Lenker v. 11, p. 111 § 12]

50) Theology of the Formula of Concord I, 135.198 f.

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

      Dr. Erwin J. Kolb was the LC-MS Executive Secretary of the Board for Evangelism, 1972-1989. (I don't know if he was related to Dr. Robert Kolb.) He provided an essay for the July 1977 issue of Concordia Journal, “Save Us From Synergism”, in which he related the following (p. 154).

“For the first ten years of my ministry [1949-1959] I believed and taught in addition to the Gospel a form of synergism without realizing it.…Often I was asked the question, “But I have to believe, don’t I? I can say ‘no,’ or I can say ‘yes,’ and that is my decision. It depends on me.” I would answer with this illustration:…… What’s wrong with [my] illustrations which describe man in a position of saying “yes” or “no”? Man by nature is more than lost or sick. The Bible teaches that man is dead. He has no power to assent to the operation or to follow the guide out of the woods.”

I was glad to discover this article and Dr. Kolb's surprisingly candid admission of being confused on subtle synergism.  I was also glad that he, at least partially, cleared up this confusion in his essay.  However, he should have been more forceful in the true Lutheran teaching, as Walther was (bolding mine):

“Accordingly, none of them can say: ‘How can the minister know the condition of my heart?  What is absolution to profit me when I am impenitent?’  Answer:  ‘Indeed, in that case it is of no benefit, but it is of benefit when it is believed.  However, this is certain that you have been absolved.’” (The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, page 376.)”

The sentence in bold is what I would call "Walther's Last Word", that the absolution pronounced is still true even if the subject is impenitent and does not believe it.  Upon reflection, Kolb's article exposed a troubling situation in his LC-MS, that his LC-MS seminary training did not use the teaching of Franz Pieper or the Formula of Concord, or Martin Luther, or at least did not emphasize them. Pieper's teaching was death on synergism.  He hammered this home to his students, his readers, his Synod, his congregation… over and over, ad nauseam. — Pieper is not done yet with the poison of Synergism – in the next Part 9…

Fundament 7: Arminianism; Synergism in Lutheranism; Piepkorn: "merciless", "monotonous"

      This continues from Part 6 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the foundation of the Christian faith ("Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens"). — Now we move to the category of the Reformed churches that Chuck Smith, founder of Calvary Chapel, identified as encompassing those who have “Methodist, Nazarene, and other Arminian-influenced backgrounds”.  There are very many Reformed sects in America… who knows how many of these are Arminian-influenced?… perhaps the majority of them? And to think of it – these have their basis in the later position of the author of the Lutheran Augsburg Confession.  Pieper bares all in this segment.

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

Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Pieper's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] is mine.

Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens.

The Foundation of the Christian Faith.

[by President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary; continued from Part 6 - page 99]

And what about the foundation of the Christian faith in the other division of the Reformed fellowships, the Arminian Reformed? In contrast to the Calvinist Reformed, they want to teach [page 100] the general grace extending to all people.

But for their part they now restrict the grace of God in another way, namely in the way that they teach that man's conversion and salvation do not depend on God's grace alone, but also on the fact that man participates in his part for the attainment of grace and salvation. God's grace is only a partial power (vis partialis) for the conversion of the human will. The divine grace can only assert itself successfully with human participation, non posse exire in actum sine cooperatione liberae voluntatis humanae. 38) Thus the attainment of the grace of God and salvation does not come on the sola gratia, but also, and crucially, on man himself, starting to stand for his participation, his self-determination, self-decision, better behavior in comparison with other people. But the grace of God and salvation does not even exist where this is a factor for its attainment, and a faith that is based on this foundation or is dependent on it is a human imagination that plunges into doubt and despair in every serious challenge.

And yet, this scripturally unsound and bleak Arminian-Reformed doctrine also emerged within the Lutheran Church. And very soon. Melanchthon was quite a good theologian as long as he followed Luther's guidance from God's Word. But when he learned to feel and strived for independence from Luther, his philosophy “plagued him”. He wanted to be wise beyond God's Word. He did not want to calm himself down by what Scripture teaches, namely that those who are lost are lost only by their own guilt, whereas those who are saved are saved only by God's grace. Rather, he wanted to explain by human reason why not all people are saved. He could have won the explanation sought in Calvin's way by denying, as Calvin did, the general grace of God and the general salvation of Christ. But Melanchthon did not like this “explanation”. But because he thought he had to “explain” (necesse est) it, he chose the explanation that was later officially written on the flag of the Reformed Church by the Arminian party. He denied the “by grace alone,” the sola gratia. He taught: “Since the promise of the Gospel is general and not contradictory in God's will, there must necessarily be in us [men] a cause of difference why Saul is rejected, why David is accepted, that is, there must be in the two a different behavior (actio dissimilis)”. 39) Melanchthon taught three causes of conversion (tres causae conversionis), two outside and one inside man. He made, next to the Holy [page 101]

-------------- 

38) Thus the Apology of the Confession of the Remonstrants 1630, p.162 b. 

39) Loci, ed. Detzer I, 74.

Spirit and the Word of God, the human will (the voluntas non repugnans, the facultas se applicandi ad gratiam) to be a contributing cause of conversion. It was for this reason that in the second half of the sixteenth century the Lutheran Church experienced a hard, more than thirty-year struggle. It was necessary to recoup this “by grace alone” in the doctrine of conversion and eternal election. 

The truth completely triumphed. In the second and eleventh articles of the Formula of Concord the rubbish of the synergism of Melanchthon and the Philippists is thoroughly swept away. With clear testimony, the Formula of Concord expels the synergistic fog that wanted to settle over the Reformation Church. She calls to the Church of God: No tres causae conversionis, but conversion to God is the work of God the Holy Spirit alone, for which he uses preaching and hearing of the Word of God as the means and instrument ordered by God. The Formula of Concord complains, 40) that “Since also the youths in the schools have been greatly perplexed de tribus causis efficientibus, concurrentibus im comversione hominis non renati, that is, by the doctrine of the three efficient causes of the conversion of unregenerate man to God, as to the manner in which they, namely, the Word of God preached and heard, the Holy Ghost, and the will of man, concur”. And in a positive statement it adds “that conversion to God is a work of God the Holy Ghost alone, who is the true Master that alone works this in us, for which He uses the preaching and hearing of His Holy Word as His ordinary [and lawful] means and instrument. But the intellect and will of the unregenerate man are nothing else than subiectum convertendum, that is, that which is to be converted, it being the intellect and will of a spiritually dead man, in whom the Holy Ghost works conversion and renewal.” The Formula of Concord therefore also calls us into the Church: there is no acquiesce by man to grace (facultas se applicandi ad gratiam), but man, according to his natural nature, resists, also knowingly and willingly (etiam sciens volensque), the action of the Holy Spirit “until he is enlightened, converted and regenerated by the Holy Spirit”. 41) There is therefore also 42) no “different behavior” (actio dissimilis) and no different guilt, but if those who become converted and saved compare themselves with those who remain unconverted, they must confess the same guilt (eadem culpa) and the same evil behavior against God's Word and the action of the Holy Spirit. “Nos cum illis collati et quam simillimi illis deprehensi.” [page 102]

-------------- 

40) M. 610, 90. Trigl. 915, 90. [BoC here]  

41) M. 589, 7; 593, 20. 21. [Trigl. 883, 7; 889, 20-21; BoC here, here]

42) M.716, 57ff. [Trigl. 1081, 57 ff.; BoC here]

If we Christians, in a hired comparison, assume a different behavior and a lesser guilt on our part, we would leave the foundation of the Christian faith,  the sola gratia. “For no injustice is done those who are punished and receive the wages of their sins; but in the rest, to whom God gives and preserves His Word, by which men are enlightened, converted, and preserved, God commends His pure [immense] grace and mercy, without their merit.” [§ 61, BoC here]  Finally, the Formula of Concord also testifies: what goes beyond these two revealed in God's Word, namely beyond one's own guilt on the part of those who are lost, and beyond sola gratia on the part of those who will be saved, is to be recognized and left unexplored as a mystery in this life which is unsearchable for human knowledge. So thoroughly and all-round, the Formula of Concord sweeps out the synergism of Melanchthon and his followers. It forbids the attempt to explain the way Melanchthon proceeded. It also most emphatically rejects the factors in which Melanchthon found the desired explanation by teaching: There is no tres causae conversionis, no facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, no different behavior and no different guilt on the part of those who convert and become saved, but among them there is the same guilt and the same evil behavior. — Nevertheless, synergism, with its doctrine of different behavior and its different guilt on the part of those who convert and become saved, has repeatedly re-emerged in the Lutheran Church in the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries and, as in other countries, especially in the United States, has claimed the right to exist within the Lutheran Church. 

= = = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 8  = = = = = = = = = =

      Pieper's teaching above is what Fuerbringer earlier labeled as one of his greatest strengths in discussions with opposing Lutheran groups in America – his ability to expose their hidden synergism (see Part 6, "Pieper as Theologian").
Piepkorn… or Pieper?

  Arthur Carl Piepkorn, in his 1977-1979 4-volume Profiles in Belief: The Religious Bodies of the United States and Canada lists several hundred "Protestant" church bodies outside of Lutheranism. Volume 2 lists dozens of divisions within what were considered the major branches of the Reformed groups: 

• Episcopal / Anglican, 
• "Reformed" / Presbyterian, 
• "Radical Reformation" groups – Congregationalists, Mennonite, Baptists, etc.,  
• Methodists.  

Volume 3 lists about 188 Holiness and Pentecostal church groups in America in the 1970s. Volume 4 lists dozens more under the headings of "Evangelical" and "Fundamentalist". Piepkorn's work may appear astounding to some.  Union Theological Seminary's Robert Handy, in the Introduction to Volume 2, p. xix, wrote that Piepkorn

"mercilessly reports on many, many small denominations,… later volumes will continue to spell out the details of the more than seven hundred religious bodies on the North American scene. It is good to have all this information in one place; … a diversity that in some respects contributes to the trivialization of organized religion. Probably most of us feel that this price of freedom is worth paying, but the litany of diversity does grow long and monotonous."

Piepkorn's "mercilous" reporting ends up being only a "litany of diversity… long and monotonous."  But Franz Pieper keeps it simple: The Reformed groups in America and their doctrine are either "Calvinist", "Arminian" synergism, or a mediation between these two subdivisions in doctrine.  And their "distinctives" against Lutheranism are much more than a "trivialization of organized religion".  Rather they destroy the foundation of the Christian faith. — In the next Part 8, Pieper continues his drive to expose the poison of Synergism.