Buddhism contrasted with Christianity-Pt 1 (Monier-Williams over C.S. Lewis, Max Müller)

Sir Monier Monier-Williams

[August 12: add hyperlinks, highlighting; modernized Bible verse references.]
I have previously blogged about "Pieper's error" regarding a famous quote he used in several of his writings including his Christian Dogmatics (vol. 1, pg 15).  Recent research from Australia has re-published the actual quote made by Sir Monier Monier-Williams which deserves repeating, just as Pieper repeated it several times (bolding by Australian pastor):

In the discharge of my duties for forty-two years I have devoted as much time as any man living to the study of these books [Sacred Books of the East]. ... What we must not forget is that the key point that he makes is that right throughout all the heathen religions there is "the one refrain through all: salvation by works. They all say that salvation must be purchased, must be bought with a price, and that the sole price, the sole purchase-money, must be our works and deservings. Our own Holy Bible, our sacred Book of the East, is from beginning to end a protest against this doctrine. Good works are indeed enjoined upon us in that sacred Book of the East; but they are only the outcome of a grateful heart; they are only a thank-offering, the fruits of our faith. They are never the ransom-money of the true disciples of Christ. Let us not shut our eyes to what is excellent and true and of good report in these sacred books; but let us teach Hindus, Buddhists, and Mohammedans that there is only one sacred Book of the East that can be their mainstay in that awful hour when they pass all alone into the unseen world. It is the sacred Book which contains that faithful saying, worthy to be received of all men, women, and children, and not merely of us Christians, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

      A great advantage for me in researching Monier-Williams is that he was English and wrote in the English language... no translation needed from German.  And could it be?... he was from Oxford University!... the same as C.S. Lewis, but at an earlier time (~1889) when apparently true Christian doctrine was not universally muddled (despised?) as it is today.  So it was an easy task to research Monier-Williams' various writings to confirm his stand on Christianity compared with Max Müller.  And Oh!... what a wonderful treasure I discovered from him as he uses his superior knowledge of the Eastern religions – not to impress the world, but to show the truth of Christianity.

      To all who would read, follow, and even quote C.S. Lewis (an Oxford don), they would do much better to read another Oxford professor to learn the truth of (mere) Christianity. —  Steve Jobs was partially raised in an LC-MS family ("Missouri Synod") but left the training of his youth to find religion in the East.  The Beatles were enamored with Eastern religions.  To say that Eastern religions are popular today would be an understatement.  But Monier-Williams (and Pieper) show us that these very intelligent (and popular) people were sucked into a maelstrom of man-made religions.  — And so I present the concluding chapter of one of Monier-Williams' great books on Buddhism.  I will present it in 2 parts:

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

Text extracted from Buddhism in its connexion with Brāhmanism and Hindūism and in its contrast with Christianity. (WorldCat) by Sir Monier Monier-Williams, 1889, pages 537-563; © The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office (India), 1963, Second Edition.  Also in Google Books beginning here.  Pagination headers retained for reference.  Hyperlinks added for reference. Highlighting by BackToLuther.

————————————————————————————

LECTURE XVIII.

Buddhism contrasted with Christianity.

by Sir Monier Monier-Williams

(Part 1)

In the previous Lectures I have incidentally contrasted the principal doctrines of Buddhism with those of Christianity.

It will be my aim in this concluding Lecture to draw attention more directly and more in detail to the main points of divergence between two systems, which in their moral teaching have so many points of contact, that a superficial study of either is apt to lead to very confused ideas in regard to their comparative excellence and their resemblance to each other.

And first of all I must remind those who heard my earlier Lectures of the grand fundamental distinction which they were intended to establish—namely, that Christianity is a religion, whereas Buddhism, at least in its earliest and truest form, is no religion at all, but a mere system of morality and philosophy founded on a pessimistic theory of life.

Here, however, it may be objected that, before we exclude Buddhism from all title to be called a religion, we ought to define what we mean by the term ‘religion.’

Of course, it will be generally acknowledged that mere morality need not imply religion, though—taking

538 BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY.

the converse—it is most undeniably true that religion must of necessity imply morality.

Unquestionably there have been great philosophers in ancient times who have lived strictly moral lives without acknowledging any religious creed at all. Many excellent men, too, exist among us in the present day, who resent being called irreligious, and yet hold no definite religious doctrines, and decline to accept any system which commits them to absolute belief in anything except an eternal Energy or Force.

Clearly the definition of the word ‘religion’ is beset with difficulties, and its etymology is too uncertain to help us in explaining it1. We shall, however, be justified if we affirm that every system claiming to be a religion in the proper sense of the word must postulate the eternal existence of one living and true God of infinite power, wisdom, and love, the Creator, Designer, and Preserver of all things visible and invisible.

It must also take for granted the immortality of man’s soul or spirit, and the reality of a future state and of an unseen world. It must also postulate in man an innate sense of dependence on a personal God—a sense of reverence and love for Him, springing from a belief in His justice, holiness, wisdom, power, and love, and intensified by a deep consciousness of weakness, and a yearning to be delivered from the presence, tyranny, and penalty of sin.

————————

1 Cicero (De natura deorum) derives religion from relego, and explains it as a diligent practice of prayer and worship. Others have derived it from religo, and hold that it means ‘binding to God.’

BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY. 539

Then, starting from these assumptions, it must satisfy four requisites.

First, it must reveal the Creator in His nature and attributes to His creature, man.

Secondly, it must reveal man to himself. It must impart to him a knowledge of his own nature and history—what he is; why he was created; whither he is tending; and whether he is at present in a state of decadence downwards from a higher condition, or of development upwards from a lower.

Thirdly, it must reveal some method by which the finite creature may communicate with the infinite Creator—some plan by which he may gain access to Him and become united with Him, and be saved by Him from the consequences of his own sinful acts.

Fourthly, such a system must prove its title to be called a religion by its regenerating effect on man’s nature; by its influence on bis thoughts, desires, passions, and feelings; by its power of subduing all his evil tendencies; by its ability to transform his character and assimilate him to the God it reveals.

It is clear, then, that tried by such a criterion as this, early Buddhism could not claim to be a religion. It failed to satisfy these conditions. It refused to admit the existence of a personal Creator, or of man’s dependence on a higher Power. It denied any eternal soul or Ego in man. It acknowledged no external, supernatural revelation. It had no priesthood—no real clergy; no real prayer; no real worship. It had no true idea of sin, or of the need of pardon (p. 124), and it condemned man to suffer the consequences of his own

540 BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY.

sinful acts without hope of help from any Saviour or Redeemer, and indeed from any being but himself.

The late Bishop of Calcutta once said to me, that being in an outlying part of his diocese, where Buddhism prevailed, he asked an apparently pious Buddhist, whom he happened to observe praying in a temple, what he had just been praying for? He replied, ‘I have been praying for nothing.’ ‘But,’ urged the Bishop, ‘to whom have you been praying?’ The man answered, ‘I have been praying to nobody.’ ‘What!’ said the astonished Bishop, ‘praying for nothing to nobody?’ And no doubt this anecdote gives an accurate idea of the so-called prayer of a time Buddhist. This man had not really been praying for anything. He had been merely making use of some form of words to which an efficacy, like that of sowing fruitful seed in a field, was supposed to belong. He had not been praying in any Christian sense.

Here, however, an objector might remind me that according to my own showing, various developments of Buddhism modified and even contradicted the original creed, and that what has been here said about prayer, is only strictly applicable to early Buddhism as originally taught in the most ancient texts.

I grant this—I grant that expressions of reverence for the Buddha, the Law, and the Monkhood, developed into expressions of wants and needs, and that these expressions, gradually led on to the offering of actual prayers to deified Buddhas and Bodhi-sattvas.

I admit that we ought to judge of Buddhism as a whole. We ought to give full consideration to its

BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY. 541

later developments, and the gradual sliding of its atheism and agnosticism into theism and polytheism. We are bound to acknowledge that Buddhism, as it extended to other countries, did acquire the character of a theistic religious system, which, though false, had in it some points of contact with Christianity.

Nevertheless, admitting all this, and taking into account all that can; be said in favour of Buddhism as a religious system, it will be easy to show how impossible it is to bridge over the yawning chasm which separates it from the true religion.

It is, indeed, one of the strange phenomena of the present day, that even educated people who call themselves Christians, are apt to fall into raptures over the precepts of Buddhism 1, attracted by the bright gems which its admirers delight in culling out of its moral code, and in displaying ostentatiously, while keeping out of sight all its dark spots, all its trivialities and senseless repetitions2; not to speak of all those evi-

————————

1 Here is an extract from a book called ‘The Mystery of the Ages,’ published in 1887:– ‘Buddhism is the Christianity of the East, and, as such, even in better conservation than is Christianity, the Buddhism of the West.’

2 As instances of the trivialities I give the following from the Culla-vagga (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xx. v, 31, p. 146; v. 9. 5, p. 87): —

‘Now at that time the Bhikkhus hung up their bowls on pins in the walls, or on hooks. The pins or hooks falling down, the bowls were broken. They told this matter to the Blessed One. “You are not, O Bhikkhus, to hang your bowls up. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata” (offence). Now at that time the Bhikkhus put their bowls down on a bed, or a chair; and sitting down thoughtlessly they upset them, and the bowls were broken. They

542 BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY.

dences of deep corruption beneath a whited surface, all

————————————————————————

told this matter to the Blessed One. “You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put your bowls on a bed, or on a chair. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata” (offence). Now at that time the Bhikkhus kept their bowls on their laps; and rising up thoughtlessly they upset them, and the bowls were broken They told this matter to the Blessed One. “You are not, O Bhikkhus, to keep your bowls on your laps. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata” (offence). Now at that time the Bhikkhus put their bowls down on a sunshade; and the sunshade being lifted up by a whirlwind, the howls rolled over and were broken. They told this matter to the Blessed One. “You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put your bowls down on a sunshade. Whosoever does so, shall he guilty of a dukkata.” Now at that time the Bhikkhus, when they were holding the bowls in their hands, opened the door. The door springing hack, the bowls were broken. They told this matter to the Blessed One. “You are not, O Bhikkhus, to open the door with your bowls in your hands. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata.” Now at that time the Bhikkhus did not use tooth-sticks, and their mouths got a bad odour. They told this matter to the Blessed One. “There are these five disadvantages, O Bhikkhus, in not using tooth-sticks—it is bad for the eyes—the mouth becomes bad-smelling—the passages by which the flavours of the food pass are not pure—bile and phlegm get into the food—and the food does not taste well to him who does not use them. These are the five disadvantages, O Bhikkhus, in not using tooth-sticks.” “There are five advantages, O Bhikkhus” (etc., the converse of the last). “I allow you, O Bhikkhus, tooth-sticks.” Now at that time the Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus used long tooth-sticks; and even struck the Sāmaneras with them. They told this matter to the Blessed One. “You are not, O Bhikkhus, to use too long tooth-sticks. Whosoever does so, shall he guilty of a dukkata. I allow you, O Bhikkhus, tooth- sticks up to eight finger-breadths in length. And Sāmaneras are not to he struck with them. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata.” Now at that time a certain Bhikkhu, when using too short a tooth-stick got it stuck in his throat. They told this matter to the Blessed One. “You are not, O Bhikkhus, to use too short a tooth- stick. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata. I allow you, O Bhikkhus, tooth-sticks four finger-breadths long at the least.” ’

BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY. 543

those significant precepts and prohibitions in its books of discipline, which indeed no Christian could soil his lips by uttering1.

It has even been asserted that much of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, and in other parts of the Gospel narratives, is based on previously current moral teaching, which Buddhism was the first to introduce to the world, 500 years before Christ2. But this is not all. The admirers of Buddhism maintain that the Buddha was not a mere teacher of the truths of morality, but of many other sublime truths. He has been justly called, say they, ‘the Light of Asia,’ though they condescendingly admit that Christianity as a later development is more adapted to become the religion of the world.

Let us then inquire, for a moment, what claim Gautama Buddha has to this title—‘the Light of Asia?’

Now, in the first place those who give him this name forget that his doctrines only spread over Eastern Asia, and that either Confucius, or Zoroaster, or Muhammad might equally be called ‘the Light of Asia.’

————————

1 Although this Lecture was written and in type before the publication of the Bishop of Colombo’s article in the July (1888) number of the ‘Nineteenth Century,’ I need not say that I wish here, as the Bishop has done, to draw attention to the collection of ‘moral horrors’ existing in some parts of the Pārājika books—the disgusting detail of every conceivable form of revolting vice, supposed to be perpetrated or perpetrable by monks.

2 Dr. Kellogg, in his excellent work, ‘the Light of Asia and the Light of the World,’ well criticizes Professor Seydel’s Buddhist-Christian Harmony, as well as the Professor’s views on this point expressed in his work entitled ‘Das Evangelium von Jesu in Seinen Verhältnissen zu Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre.’ Leipzig, 1880.

544 BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY.

But was the Buddha, in any true sense, a Light to any part of the world?

It is certainly true that the main idea implied by Buddhism is intellectual enlightenment. Buddhism, before all things, means enlightenment of mind, resulting from intense self-concentration and introspection, from intense abstract meditation, combined with the exercise of a man’s own reasoning faculties and intuitions.

Of what nature, then, was the so-called Light of Knowledge that radiated from the Buddha? Was it the knowledge of his own utter weakness, of his original depravity of heart, or of the origin of sin? No; the Buddha’s light was in these respects profound darkness. He confessed himself, in regard to such momentous questions, a downright Agnostic. The primary origin of evil—the first evil act—was to him an inexplicable mystery.

Was it, then, a knowledge of the goodness, justice, holiness, and omnipotence of a personal Creator? Was it a knowledge of the Fatherhood of God? No; the Buddha’s light was in these respects also mere and sheer darkness. In these respects, too, he acknowledged himself a thorough Agnostic. He admitted that he knew of no being higher than himself.

What, then, was the light that broke upon the Buddha? What was this enlightenment which has been so much written about and extolled? All that he claimed to have discovered was the origin of suffering and the remedy of suffering. All the light of knowledge to which he attained came to this: —that

BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY. 545

suffering arises from indulging desires, especially the desire for continuity of life; that suffering is inseparable from life; that all life is suffering; and that suffering is to be got rid of by the suppression of desires, and by the extinction of personal existence.

Here, then, is the first great contrast. When the Buddha said to his converts, ‘Come (ehi), be my disciple,’ he bade them expect to get rid of suffering, he told them to stamp out suffering by stamping out desires (see pp. 43, 44). When the Christ said to His disciples, ‘Come, follow Me,’ He bade them expect suffering. He told them to glory in their sufferings— nay, to expect the perfection of their characters through suffering.

It is certainly noteworthy that both Christianity and Buddhism agree in asserting that all creation groaneth and travaileth in pain, in suffering, in tribulation. But mark the vast, the vital distinction in the teaching of each. The one taught men to be patient under affliction, and to aim at the glorification of the suffering body, the other taught men to be intolerant of affliction, and to aim at the utter annihilation of the suffering body.

What says our Bible? We Christians, it says, are members of Christ’s Body—of His flesh and of His bones—of that Divine Body which was once a suffering Body, a cross-bearing Body, and is now a glorified Body, an ever-living, life-giving Body. Hence it teaches us to honour and revere the human body; nay, almost to deify the human body.

A Buddhist, on the other hand, treats every kind

546 BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY.

of body with contempt, and repudiates as a simple impossibility, all idea of being a member of the Buddha’s body. How could a Buddhist be a member of a body which was burnt to ashes—which was calcined, —which became extinct at the moment when the Buddha’s whole personality became extinguished also?

But, say the admirers of Buddhism, at least you will admit that the Buddha told men to avoid sin, and to aim at purity and holiness of life? Nothing of the kind. The Buddha had no idea of sin as an offence against God, no idea of true holiness (see p. 124). What he said was—Get rid of the demerit of evil actions and accumulate a stock of merit by good actions.

And let me remark here that this determination to store up merit—like capital at a bank—is one of those inveterate propensities of human nature, one of those irrepressible and deep-seated tendencies in humanity which nothing but the divine force imparted by Christianity can ever eradicate. It is for ever cropping up in the heart of man, as much in the West as in the East, as much in the North as in the South; for ever re-asserting itself like a pestilent weed, or like tares amidst the wheat, for ever blighting the fruit of those good instincts which underlie man’s nature everywhere.

Only the other day I met an intelligent Sikh from the Panjāb, and asked him about his religion. He replied, 'I am no idolater; I believe in One God, and I repeat my prayers, called “Jap-jee,” every morning and evening. These prayers occupy six pages of print,

BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY. 547

but I can get through them in little more than ten minutes.’ He seemed to pride himself on this rapid recitation as a work of increased merit.

I said, ‘What else does your religion require of you?’ He replied, ‘I have made one pilgrimage to a holy well near Amritsar. Eighty-five steps lead down to it. I descended, and bathed in the sacred pool. Then I ascended one step and repeated my Jap-jee with great rapidity. Then I descended again to the pool and bathed again, and ascended to the second step and repeated my prayers a second time. Then I descended a third time, and ascended to the third step and repeated my Jap-jee a third time, and so on for the whole eighty-five steps, eighty-five bathings and eighty-five repetitions of the same prayers. It took me exactly fourteen hours, from 5 p. m. one evening to 7 a. m. next morning, and I fasted all the time.’

I asked, ‘What good did you expect to get by going through this task?’ He replied, ‘I hope I have laid up an abundant store of merit, which will last me for a long time.’

This, let me tell you, is a genuine Hindū notion. It is of the very essence of Brahmanism, of Hindūism, of Zoroastrianism, of Confucianism, of Muhammadanism. It is even more of the essence of Buddhism, For, of all systems, Buddhism is the one which lays most stress on the accumulation of merit by good actions, as the sole counterpoise to the mighty force generated by the accumulation of demerit through evil actions in present and previous forms of life.

548 BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY.

Nor did the Buddha ever claim to be a deliverer from guilt, a purger from the taint of past pollution. He never pretended to set any one free from the penalty, power, and presence of sin—from the bondage of sinful acts and besetting vices. He never professed to furnish any cure for the leprosy of man’s corrupt nature—any medicine for a dying sinner 1. On the contrary, by his doctrine of Karma he bound a man hand and foot to the inevitable consequences of his own evil actions with chains of adamant. He said, in effect, to every one of his disciples, ‘You are in slavery to a tyrant of your own setting up; your own deeds, words, and thoughts in your present and former states of being, are your own avengers through a countless series of existences.

“Your acts your angels are for good or ill,

Your fatal shadows that walk by you still.”

'If you have been a murderer, a thief, a liar, impure, a drunkard, you must pay the penalty in your next birth—perhaps as a sufferer in one of the hells 2, per-

————————

1 It is true that in the Lalita-vistara Buddha is described in terms which appear to assimilate his character to the Christian conception of a Saviour; but how could any man, however good and great, have any claim to be called either a Saviour or Redeemer, who only revealed to his fellow-men such a method of getting rid of pain and suffering, through their own works and merits, as must lead them in the end to extinction of all personal existence? The very essence of Christ’s character as a Saviour is His divine power of transferring His own perfect merits to imperfect men, and leading them from death to eternal life, not to eternal extinction of life.

2  In regard to the Buddhist doctrine of terrific purgatorial torments in some of the numerous Hells see p. 120 of this volume.

BUDDHISM CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTIANITY. 549

haps in the body of a wild beast, perhaps in that of some unclean animal or loathsome vermin, perhaps as a demon or evil spirit. Yes, your doom is sealed. Not in the heavens, O man, not in the midst of the sea, not if thou hidest thyself in the clefts of the mountains, wilt thou find a place where thou canst escape the force of thine own evil actions1. Thy only hope of salvation is in thyself. Neither god nor man can save thee, and I am wholly powerless to set thee free.’

And now, contrast the few brief words of Christ in his first recorded sermon2. ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He hath sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.’

Yes, in Christ alone there is deliverance from the bondage of former transgressions, from the prison- house of former sins; a total cancelling of the past; a complete blotting-out of the handwriting that is against us; an entire washing away of every guilty stain; the opening of a clear course for every man to start afresh; the free gift of pardon and of life to every criminal, to every sinner—even the most heinous and inveterate.

Still, I seem to hear some admirers of Buddhism...

————————

1 See Dhamma-pada, 127.

2 I have not followed the exact words in our authorized translation of St. Luke 4:18, because they must be taken with Isaiah.

- - - - - - - - - - - -   To be continued in Part 2   - - - - - - - - - - - -

August 12: added hyperlinks, much more highlighting and modernized Bible verse references for ease of quick reference.  Especially of interest is that of Dr. Kellogg's The Light of Asia and the Light of the World, and of the Bishop of Colombo's writing on Buddhism.
See next post Part 2 (of 3) for the remainder of this chapter...

Walther — The American Luther!

Frontispiece from Martin Günther's Dr. C. F. W. Walther: Lebensbild.

English Conf. 1872— Walther's 16 Theses in English (more Convention Essays)

Continuing with the publishing of new material on my Convention Essays blog post, I am republishing an earlier original English – not from the German – essay delivered by C.F.W. Walther to the very early English language Lutherans who wanted to follow these German language Lutherans who were teaching purely according to the Lutheran faith, according to the Lutheran Book of Concord.  —

But before I publish the full essay in a text box, I want to extract all 16 Theses so that they may be previewed by the reader to examine the contents.  It will be noticed that they display a remarkable similarity to other doctrinal theses by him and Pieper.  This essay has been republished by Concordia Publishing House most recently in their newest Walther's Works series – Church Fellowship.  Before that, it was published in the 1992 Essays for the Church, Vol. 1, 1857-1879 book that is out of print.  Prof. Charles Arand wrote in 1992 in his Foreword:

"All in all, these are perhaps most valuable for not only showing Walther's practice in seeking and maintaining unity, but as a helpful summary of Walther's theology." 

Highlighting is mine:

Thesis 1.

A.  The written Word of God is the only rule and standard of Faith and Life.

B.  The written Word of God is the only source of Christian knowledge.

C.  The Word of God is always to be understood literally; —not always, indeed, properly; but figuratively only for cogent reasons.

D.  The Word of God is its own interpreter. It is not to be interpreted by reason, tradition, or new revelations.

Thesis 2.

Man by nature has no free will in spiritual matters, and hence he is not able to co-operate towards his conversion.

Thesis 3.

By virtue of its personal union with the Godhead divine properties are really communicated to the human nature of Christ.

Thesis 4.

Christ has perfectly and completely reconciled the whole world unto God.

Thesis 5.

A.  By the means of grace alone, to wit, the Word and the Sacraments, the merit and benefits of Christ are really communicated to men.

B.  The Gospel is not a mere announcement of the grace of Christ, but it is also at the same time an offer of the same to all who hear, and a communication of it to all who believe.

C.  Private absolution is the Gospel directed to individual persons and an offer and donation of the remission of sins on the part of God.

D.  Absolution demands faith, and faith alone receives what is offered and given by it; neither absolution, nor any other means of grace, operates ex opere operato.

Thesis 6.

A.  Faith alone justifies and saves. This is the main article of the whole Christian religion.

B.  Faith, if it is true faith, renews a man’s heart, mind, disposition and all faculties, purifies the heart and is active in charity and good works.

Thesis 7.

Good works are only such as are commanded by God, provided they are done in faith.

Thesis 8.

A.  Baptism effects regeneration and imparts everlasting salvation to them that receive the same in faith.

B.  By sins against conscience the grace of Baptism is lost.

C.  Baptism stands immovable on the point of God, even when man falls; by repentance, therefore, he may and shall return to the same.

Thesis 9.

In the Holy Supper the true body and blood of Christ are truly present, are distributed under the bread and wine, and eaten and drank both by the worthy and unworthy communicants; by the former for the remission of sins, by the latter unto judgment.

Thesis 10.

A.  It is a part of Christian liberty to be freed from the Jewish ceremonial and political laws.

B.  By virtue of this Christian liberty a believer in the time of the New Testament is no more bound to the observance of a Sabbath.

Thesis 11.

A.  The Church, in the proper sense of the term, is the invisible totality of all true believers in Christ.

B.  The characteristic marks of the Church are pure doctrine and unadulterated sacraments.

C.  Ecclesiastical communion is to be cherished only with those who agree in all articles of faith.

Thesis 12.

A.  It is the duty of the Church to maintain church-discipline and, consequently, to excommunicate obstinate errorists or sinners.

B.  Applicants to communion must be examined ere they are admitted.

C.  Ignorant people are not to be admitted to the sacrament.

Thesis 13.

The power of the keys is not an exclusive privilege of ordained ministers, but a power of the whole believing Church that possesses the same originally and immediately.

Thesis 14.

A.  Ministers do not form a peculiar holy priestly order in opposition to laymen.

B.  The pastoral office is nothing but an office, instituted of God, of ministering unto the Church.

C.  To call preachers is a right of the congregation to whom they are to minister. Ordination is only a confirmation of this call and an apostolic ecclesiastical institution.

Thesis 15.

The doctrine according to which a glorification of the Church in a millennial reign is to be expected, is a contradiction to several articles of the Christian faith and is consequently to be rejected.

Thesis 16.

The Romish pope is the Antichrist, as prophesied in the Holy Scriptures.

A full scanned copy of the original publication, and the full text of the same, may be obtained from the original Convention Essays blog post (1872-English Lutheran Conference-Walther-Sixteen Theses.pdf). 

Missouri Theses II- English Conf w/ Walther (1884) -- for a "well grounded Lutheran congregation"

      Again while researching and expanding the download links for the Convention Essay blog post, I discovered that the Theses published and discussed in 1876 and 1877 (see last post) in the German Missouri Synod were also partially discussed in the emerging "English Lutheran Conference" – a forerunner of today's LC-MS.  But not all 28 Theses were discussed... not even the beginning Theses.  So what two Theses did the convention discuss with C.F.W. Walther providing the presention?  They were Theses IV and V (Fourth and Fifth).   These were the Theses on Luther's writings and the Doctrine of Justification... these were prioritized to be the only ones out of the 28 Theses to be discussed.  Ah!... now we have an early English translation of Walther's work.  And I want to present this in a separate blog post because here Walther speaks my language... English.
      See the preceding blog post regarding the Theses for a "well founded Lutheran congregation" for reference.   A scanned copy of this 1884 English Conference's Proceedings may be downloaded and viewed on my original Convention Essays listing post.

• Thesis IV: In honor of the upcoming Reformation Anniversary, the discussion on "Thesis Fourth" will be most uplifting in its presentation of Martin Luther.
• Thesis V: Beginning on page 10, "Thesis Fifth" startles Lutherans with the following statement regarding the Doctrine of Justification:

"It is generally supposed that all denominations teach alike concerning Justification by Faith. But no other than the Lutheran church teaches correctly concerning Justification in all its bearings."

May this reprint be to the glory of God and the edification of all readers... including me!  Amen.

Missouri Synod Theses- truly Lutheran congregation (in 1876)

      In researching the convention essays delivered during the lifetime of Walther and Pieper, I ran across a Der Lutheraner article publishing the following 28 Theses which struck me as sufficiently brief and yet thorough... and Lutheran.  I believe C.F.W. Walther had a hand in drafting these Theses although neither the article nor the subsequent district conventions positively identified the author.  They certainly deserve a re-publishing today as they are timeless for any congregation desiring to be truly Lutheran!

      Note of July 23, 2015: I just discovered These 4 and Theses 5 were discussted at the English Lutheran Conference of Missouri in November, 1884.  See the Convention Essays blog post for download -- 1884-English District-Theses IV, V...

Translated from Der Lutheraner, vol. 32 (1876), No. 11 (June 1), page 86 by BackToLuther July 20, 2015; basis for discussion at the Northwestern District in that year (1876), also in 1877, and 1879. C.F.W. Walther present in 1876 and 1877.

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

Theses.

What are the characteristics of a well-founded truly Lutheran congregation, for which Lutheran preachers with their congregations therefore have to strive as their goal?

(To be submitted for this year's proceedings of our Northwestern District on July 12, and the following days.)

1. God's Word has the dominion in itself.

2. The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church are also their confessions in truth.

3. It holds that the Lutheran Church is not the Church outside of which there is no salvation, but believes that God has his people everywhere; it is not schismatical.

4. It recognizes in Luther the Reformer of the Church called by God and highly regards his writings over all other human writings.

5. In it, above all, the Gospel or the doctrine of justification alone through faith prevails.

6. It has no favorite doctrine that it drives at the expense of the others, but respects each revealed doctrine in God's Word as a very precious treasure.

7. Their true members establish the certainty of their state of grace above all on the means of grace.

8. It recognizes the congregation of believers as the owner of all ecclesiastical power and therefore rejects all priestly rule and human servitude in matters of faith and conscience.

9. It sets the teaching about life.

10. It regards all arguing against God's Word, false doctrine as a dangerous soul poison.

11. It accepts  only those among its members which are by their confession one with her faith and from those they can by love accordingly assume that they are devout Christians.

12. It guards against all mingling of religions, as a thing that is against God.

13. It believes from the heart in the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Communion, and therefore seeks to prevent anyone to enjoy Communion with her by their own judgment.

14. It practices church discipline ordered by God on its members in doctrine and life, but in an evangelical manner.

15. They present their children for baptism and care for them, as faithful children of God entrusted to her.

16. It proves to be a caring spiritual mother of her adolescent youth.

17. It holds high and holy the offices of householder, ministry, and government as God's foundations and regulations.

18. It insists firmly on its Christian freedom.

19. It prompts before all the works of the Ten Commandments and their occupation, and discards all self-chosen works and services.

20. It provides growth in knowledge over temporary excitement of religious feeling.

21. It can not fail to testify to the truth and resist the error.

22. It rejects all equality and mingling with the world.

23. It is filled with the spirit of the mission both inside and outside the Church.

24. It uses no wrong means for its good purposes.

25. It fosters fellowship with those who are of their faith.

26. It seeks after this, that all happens decently, honestly and orderly with it, both inside and outside the divine service.

27. She holds high God's gifts also in the realm of nature and the world and is a friend of all good arts and sciences.

28. It has not a changeable mind bent on seeking innovation.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
      The doctrinal proceedings from the 1877 Northwestern District are of great interest for it covered Theses V.: on the Doctrine of Justification.  This convention had as its guests several representatives from the Wisconsin Synod: President Bading, Prof. Adolf Hoenecke, and Pastor... Franz Pieper! ... in 1877. — The Theses were only covered as far as No. 6 in convention, but this complete list should benefit all who would be members of a Lutheran congregation, not just in name but in spirit!
[NOTE: see the next post for an English translation of the full discussion of the 2 most important Theses]

New book on Luther—"the great Reformer"! J. Reston, Jr.

Luther's Fortress
by James Reston, Jr.

      A surprise came to me as I saw a book at a Barnes and Noble store that I had not seen before: Luther's Fortress: Martin Luther and His Reformation Under Siege by James Reston, Jr..  And Amazon confirmed that it is currently the "#1 New Release in Lutheran Christianity".  But what amazed me as I read the first sentence was this phrase:

“...the great Reformer Martin Luther”.

In today's world, that is quite a bold phrase to use, given the unpopularity of its subject.  And a quick perusal confirmed that this author was not as judgmental of Luther as most of today's theologians.  I will not offer an in-depth review here.  But I would like to examine a few particulars.  

     Why did Reston write this book?  Was it because of the upcoming 500th Anniversary (in 2017) of Luther’s 95 Theses and the beginning of the Reformation?  Reston states under his “Author’s Note”  on page 235:

“The inspiration for Luther’s Fortress lies in my 2008 book, Defenders of the Faith, which covers … from 1520 to 1536.  In that age… Luther’s impact in history surpasses them all. … utterly captivated by the great Reformer: his personality, his courage, his rebellion, the drama of his life, his passion and his honesty, his grace and his coarseness, his wit and humor, and his flaws.”

Hmmm... that is quite a lot of praise... mixed in with the usual caveats.  Praise indeed! It seems James Reston, Jr.  did NOT write this book so much for the Anniversary, but because he was “captivated by the great Reformer”.  Never mind Reston's epilogue (Author's Note) talk of the “dark side” or “flaws” of Luther  – something no well known author of today could omit, something practically all “Lutheran” theologians harp at.  Reston calls Martin Luther “the great Reformer” no less than 5 times in this book.  He uses the phrase “the Reformer” no less than 45 times  – could it be that he means this in an exclusive sense?... after all he said “Luther’s impact … surpasses them all”.  If only today’s Concordia Publishing House editors could speak of Luther this way!  If only the LC-MS would inform its members of what Reston reveals on page 241 to the world:

1. “the Roman Catholic ban on Luther ‘and all his followers’ is still in effect”
2. The Catholic provost’s (at Worms, Germany) answer to Reston’s inquiry (plea?) that “Wasn’t it time, in the interest of ecumenicalism, after five hundred years, that the excommunication of Luther and the ban on Lutheranism be lifted?” – Answer:

“The time to lift the ban has not yet come.” 

Does everyone in the LC-MS know that they remain officially under the same ban as Martin Luther?... No?  Why not?  Is there not anything said by the editor of Concordia Publishing's book The Lutheran Difference?... in their Reformation Anniversary Edition?   Nothing?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      ⇒ To James Reston, Jr.:  If you are a Christian who is “captivated” by Luther, you will find many of my blog posts to be of interest to you.  You certainly know a lot of facts about Luther, but to really know Luther, one must be a Christian first.  Then one can rightly judge the anti-Christian Roman Catholic Inquisition which spilled the blood of so many Lutheran martyrs who were their most hated and feared opponents.  It is for the sake of the true Gospel that Lutherans take the name of Luther, even if he himself protested against this in his earlier days (ref. your book, pages 135-136).

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

      One of the delightful details Reston reveals regards Argula von Stauff, a dear woman who gloried in the message that Luther exposed, in the Gospel… a woman of the Reformation.

      So I can recommend Mr. Reston’s book to almost all who would desire to have a true introduction to Luther  – even with its bow to modern theology’s distaste for Luther.   But in the end, the better account of Luther comes from those who not only died because of him (i.e. the Martyrs), but those who would follow him, in spirit, in the Confessions of the Lutheran Church, the Book of Concord.
      As an incentive to read this book, I quote C.F.W. Walther’s comment on Luther’s polemical writings:

“It’s all entertaining.”

Indeed, "that's entertainment"!... or as Reston says "the drama of his life".

BackToLuther

Pieper– praised by Walther, divides Law and Gospel (anniversary of Pieper's passing)

[2020-02-24: added note in red]

— June 3, 1931 — 

the passing of Prof. Franz Pieper from this earthly life

Perhaps many other things were noted for this date in world history.  But in Church History, it marks a silencing of the pen and voice of the greatest Christian theologian of the Twentieth Century.

How may I honor Pieper on this day?  With 2 examples.  There was a major Pastoral Conference in 1880 in the old (German) Missouri Synod, and all pastors were urgently requested to attend this conference to be held in Chicago.  Proceedings were published by Concordia here. [2020-02-24: English translation Walther's Works: Predestination published by CPH in 2018.  See this later blog for reference.] This was the major gathering to attempt to settle within the Missouri Synod the Great Election Controversy.  In the middle of the great debate, the opponents were using every means they could to attempt to prove that a Christian's election (or predestination) was caused "in view of their faith", or in Latin intuitu fidei.  I will cover other aspects of it soon, but I want to extract 2 things that occurred there to honor this great teacher of the Lutheran Church:

1) The "admirable" young professor, at age 28

As the writings of Martin Chemnitz were drawn into the debate, Prof. Franz Pieper properly clarified Chemnitz' position on this doctrine. (see especially page 78).  And on page 81, Walther compliments the young Prof. Franz Pieper against the opponents:

Prof. Pieper has already admirably proved that you [opponents] also cannot begin with anything at all for your cause...

Walther, although a gracious theologian, was in a heated battle and had little time for niceties.  But this compliment from Walther was the sign that the old theologian could see that this young man was no ordinary theologian, for he could properly understand the great Martin Chemnitz, chief author of the Formula of Concord.

2) the Distinction of Law and Gospel — by Walther's successor! 

A little later in the debate (pages 87-88), Prof. Pieper addresses the confusion of the opponents by saying:

The doctrine of election is a very delicate thing. There one cannot get by with mere dogmatic formulas. ... And I mean, here is proposed through observing a distinction, namely the distinction between Law and Gospel.  Whoever does not distinguish Law and Gospel here in this case [Election], will spoil all possible Scriptural passages, those of certainty, as well as those reminders dealing with the struggles. Whoever does not distinguish here between Law and Gospel, stirs a general mash together from the admonitions to certainty and to fear; there is half fear, half certainty, i.e. just no certainty.

Here sat the young professor, before the great Walther (who had already given his earlier lectures on Law and Gospel in 1878), before hundreds of Missouri Synod pastors, before many other Synodical Conference members, and proposed to use Walther's own specialty of properly distinguishing Law and Gospel to answer the mysteries of the Doctrine of Election!  I can just see the dear Walther's eyes almost come to tears as he saw his Theses come to life!  Walther would later go on in 1884-85 to deliver a more complete series of "Luther Hours" lectures on The Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel, the lectures being the basis of Concordia's later publishing of the same name.  —

— Could it be that Franz Pieper was partially the cause for Walther to produce his most well known lectures?

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

Pieper's time would come as the great Walther passed into his eternal rest in 1887.  And he would carry that torch just as well as his teacher, until the day he died on

June 3, 1931

84 years ago today.