Hoenecke 4: Theology vs “theologizing”; new books, new “Lutheran tradition”

[2019-08-04: link fixed; 2018-01-06: small addition in red below]
      This continues from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series repristinating the praise of the fathers of the Synodical Conference, especially Adolf Hoenecke.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Now Prof. Hoenecke drives home not only how bad the theological conditions were "over there" in Germany, but also then highlights the strengths of the Evangelical Lutheran Church according to Luther's Reformation:

Extract from Franz Pieper's Christliche Dogmatik, vol. 1, pp. 206, 208-211; translation by BackToLuther, not  from Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 171 n230, 173-174. Bolding is mine.  Green highlighted portions were not in the English versions, but were restored from the German and translated for the first time.

—————— (cont'd from Part 3) ——————

The only cognitive principle of theology for Walther is the Scriptures. What is not from Scripture does not belong in theology. “No less do we agree,” he writes, “therefore also with Johann Gerhard: the only principle of theology is the Word of God, therefore what is not revealed in God's Word is not theological.” He therefore rejected absolutely all theologizing on the basis of enlightened reason. (L. u. W. 21, 225 ff.) “All such apologetics,” he says, “we hate with all our heart, for it presupposes that there is something more certain than the Word of God, from which more certainty one can by way of discursive thinking [see #2 here] derive the mysterious content of revelation.” (Lehre and Wehre 34, 326; see this blog post, search ‘With our whole heart’; ref. L. u. W. 21, pg 41; Editorials from Lehre und Wehre, p. 135] While the modern confessional theologians over there define theology as the “ecclesiastical science of Christianity”

"habitus practicus"

(so Luthardt, Komp., S. 2, under “I. Begriff der Dogmatik”) and speak of their “family relationship to philosophy”, (so Öttingen, Dogmatik I, 411). Walther describes what is considered to be a primitive point of view in Oettingen, (Öttingen, Dogmatik I, 411) with Chemnitz and the other ancients as a habitus practicus. He says, ‘The purpose of the ministry is also the purpose of theology. But this is true faith, the knowledge of the truth of godliness, and finally eternal life.’ (Lehre and Wehre, 14, 73; German text)

A theologian, according to Walther, becomes one only through the Holy Spirit out of the Word of God. A true theologian is only one who is born again by the Spirit through the Word. In his edition of Baier (vol. I, p. 69) [2019-08-04 link fixed] [Lutherus – text]  he mentions Luther's words: “A doctor of Holy Scripture cannot be made by anybody, but only by the Holy Spirit from heaven, as Christ says, John 6:45.” From the Word – the theologian, and what he works with, is again the Word.

- - - - - - -  Continued in Part 5  - - - - - - -

      I have to keep reminding myself at times while reading the above that it is not just from Walther himself, nor is it from Franz Pieper, rather it is from… Adolf Hoenecke, father of the Wisconsin Synod.

Dogmatics / Systematics textbooks of today   

      Before I proceed, I have discovered with joy that Concordia Publishing House (CPH) has now introduced a new version of the Index (old volume 4) to Pieper's Christian Dogmatics in a “Print on Demand” format (probably paperback).  I have updated my previous blog post notice announcing the demise of this Index.  Although this is welcome news, one wonders that CPH will convert the entire series to this format.  After all, they have now replaced it with something new…  and we see an application for what Hoenecke teaches above.  

       So, what's new?  This...

<<<<============

      CPH has recently released a book series to replace Franz Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, entitled Confessing the Gospel: A Lutheran Approach to Systematic Theology, a 2 Volume Set.   

They would be pleased to have also the Wisconsin Synod (WELS) replace Hoenecke's  Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics (and ELS) so that they too would be “modern”. 

      One does not have to purchase CPH's “new improved” dogmatics (or systematics) book to evaluate it, for the extensive “Look Inside” file provides ample material for this.  I may publish a more extensive word usage study in the future, but I would invite the reader to do a word search using “Lutheran tradition” in the “Look Inside” file.  Go ahead, I'll wait …………

What did you find?  I found 7 instances where the writer(s) used this term, just in this “Look Inside” excerpt.  By comparison, Franz Pieper never used this “Lutheran tradition” term in his Christian Dogmatics books, neither did Walther in his writings, neither do the Lutheran Confessions or the Lutheran dogmatists, also not in Hoenecke's Ev.-Luth. Dogmatics.  And what does a Google search return as a meaning of “tradition”?:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Google search for “tradition meaning” - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

tra·di·tion

trəˈdiSH(ə)n/

noun

1. • 
     

     
     
   • 
     
2. 2.

   THEOLOGY

   a doctrine believed to have divine authority though not in the scriptures, in particular.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
      So Google's short answer indicates that the LC–MS teachers’ identification with the term “Lutheran tradition” clearly shows that they have established their “Lutheran theology” as NOT Scriptural, but their “divine authority” is rather “tradition”.  So...

The LC–MS “Lutheran tradition” is not based on Holy Scripture.

Their own terminology proves it.  (There are many other terms that can be used to show this... too many for this blog post.) —  In the next Part 5…

Hoenecke 3: his training; his praise of Walther

[2024-09-17: updated link to CPH's Editorials book of Walther; 2017-12-30: added note at bottom]
      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series repristinating the praise of the fathers of the Synodical Conference, especially Adolf Hoenecke.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Now Pieper continues with his own assessment of Hoenecke in relation to Walther, starting off with a BANG! ... making a statement that irritates almost all of today's church historians.  Then, after more biographical details, we hear the words of Hoenecke himself on… C.F.W. Walther.

Extract from Franz Pieper's Christliche Dogmatik, vol. 1, pp. 206, 208-211; translation by BackToLuther, not  from Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 171 n230, 173-174. Bolding is mine.  Green highlighted portions were not in the English versions, were restored from the German and translated for the first time.

—————— (cont'd from Part 2) ——————

We find no doctrinal difference between Walther and Hönecke, wherein we rightly see again a testimony of the unifying power of the Word of God. Like the fathers of the Missouri Synod among themselves, Walther and Hönecke were strongly distinct and different characters. They also came from different ecclesiastical backgrounds.

Hönecke studied theology in Halle under Hupfeld, Julius Müller and Tholuck, at a time when in Halle the rule of rationalism was already broken. Hönecke says in his dogmatics of Tholuck: “Tholuck has pointed the way of life to many of his students, but he was grudging toward them if they went on stricter confessional paths as the author of this dogmatics, but he always adored him as a man. He had much to be thankful for.” Hönecke came to the United States in 1863, twenty-four years after the immigration of the Saxons, as ambassador of the Berlin Missionary Society, in order to work in the church care of immigrant Germans. He became a member of the Wisconsin Synod and soon her theological leader, as already reported by Prof. Schaller's words above.

It is probably appropriate here to point out that Hönecke in his Dogmatik (I, 320 ff. [pp. 320-323; English ed. pp. 347-349]) also describes Walther as a theologian. In this account of Walther, Hönecke describes himself as a theologian at the same time, as is apparent from the attached judgments. He says about Walther:

“Carl F. W. Walther was a Scripture theologian. [Cf. the article Walther als Theologe by Dr. Francis Pieper in Lehre und Wehre, 34, 5 ff – sic! Page # incorrect in Hoenecke’s original book, p. 97 passim or see this blog post for reference, esp. here, Part 3..]

What Kattenbusch,[* see note below] the follower of Ritschl, (Von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl, p. 3) points out as Walther's weakness, that he once again set the watchword for dogmatics: “Only loci!” since it is the signature of revelation that we learn only unconnected pieces from God’s mysteries, that must be credited as praise for Walther. He thereby joins the ranks of genuine Lutheran theologians, while the so-called ‘confessional’ theologians over there, as they seek actual systems, are under the influence of Schleiermacher (pic), as Kattenbusch also explains. Creating systems to harmonize seemingly contradictory doctrines is, according to Walther, not the task of the theologian. On the contrary, he considers all building of systems to be harmful and not gain in theology; it does not bring deepening but only dissolution of the doctrines. He agrees with the words of Luther: “If it is to be harmonized, so shall we not keep one article of faith.” Just as little he considers the task of the theologian to be systematizing and harmonizing doctrines, so also what the moderns want so much, reconciling Scripture and Science, faith and knowledge. Thereby Scripture and faith must suffer according to him.

For all his respect for real science (Lehre and Wehre, Vol. 21, Foreword,), scientific theology in the sense of the moderns is something foreign to him.

Science should serve in theology only as a maid; if she wants to be more, she has to go out. It already corrupts Scripture theology when one means to help the written Word with scientific proof.

- - - - - - - -  (continued in Part 4)  - - - - - - - -

The Theologians of America

      When I first read Pieper's statement that the theology of Hoenecke and Walther was the same, I did not think much about it.  But after reading the onslaught of judgments by many historians to the contrary, this statement takes on major significance.  For Pieper shows a basis for his assertion from Hoenecke's own words which leaves all other judgments to the contrary suspect at best, deceptive at worst.  Here Pieper rubs our nose in Hoenecke's published exact words of highest praise for Walther's stand against a world of theologians going astray. 

      Hoenecke also adds his name to those defending against the encroachment of Science into theology.  We have seen in a previous blog how Prof. John Schaller followed Hoenecke's lead by defending against a “Science” that would lead Christians away from their faith.  And Hoenecke refers to Walther's great essay that later was translated into English under the title “Are We Guilty of Despising Scholarship?” in Selected Writings of C.F.W. Walther - Editorials from "Lehre Und Wehre", p. 122-142. (Lehre and Wehre, Vol. 21, Foreword, p. 1-13, 33-42, 65-80 (1875). (see also this blog)

      Here, Wisconsin Synod, here is the greatest tribute ever paid to the theology of your Hoenecke, by... Franz Pieper.  —  In the next Part 4…
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
[2017-12-30: A.C. Piepkorn makes use of the German theologian Kattenbusch in his essay "Walther and the Lutheran Symbols" (CTM, October 1961, vol. 10, p. 610; digital text here).  Piepkorn apparently agreed with Kattenbusch who attacked Lutheran Orthodoxy, thinking they stressed Holy Scripture too much over the Lutheran Confessions.]

Hoenecke 2: Schaller's intro

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series repristinating the praise of the fathers of the Synodical Conference, especially Adolf Hoenecke.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      It does not matter what Franz Pieper wrote, whether he was attacking errors of opponents or refraining from publicly attacking brethren in the Synodical Conference, today's “historians” either criticize or question Franz Pieper writings.  Whether Rev. Todd Peperkorn (p. 309) or Prof. Charles Arand or others of the LC-MS, or writers for Concordia Historical Institute, or modern historians within today's WELS, Franz Pieper is now almost universally discounted and disdained.  His Dogmatics is being phased out, eliminated.  But Pieper also gave the highest praise ever for fellow leaders of the Synodical Conference.  In his Christliche Dogmatik, he could not resist giving substantial space to show just how glorious the true unity of the Spirit was by republishing portions from Hoenecke's Dogmatik (see Part 1 for ref.).
      Now I begin my "repristination" of the fathers. As I studied carefully the original German texts and compared them to the available English translations, I discovered that several portions had been omitted by previous translators and so I decided not to copy the existing English translations but would publish my own translation with the missing portions restored.  Again, the following is the full uncut text from Pieper's original. — In this Part 1, Pieper lets Prof./President John Schaller introduce his subject.

From Franz Pieper's Christliche Dogmatik, vol. 1, pp. 206, 208-211; translation by BackToLuther, not  from Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 171 n230, 173-174. Green highlighted portions were not in the English versions and were restored from the German and translated for the first time.

————————————

As far as Hönecke's influence on the Wisconsin Synod is concerned, he is described by Prof. J. Schaller († 1920) as the man through whom the Wisconsin Synod came to a clear doctrinal position.

Prof. John Schaller
Hoenecke's historian

Schaller says, “It was then (when the Wisconsin Synod still belonged to the  General Council) that the Wisconsin Synod should be provided with an unequivocal doctrinal position and clarify its relationship with other American church bodies as well as with the German Church. At that time it belonged to the General Council, which in its commitment to Lutheran doctrine was much more resolute than the General Synod, but because of its unionist practice it displeased the resolute Lutherans who belonged to the Wisconsin Synod. On the other side was the Missouri Synod, with its unequivocal commitment to the Symbolic books of the Lutheran Church and its firm testimony against those who did not take the Lutheran Confession seriously in practice. At the proceedings, which concerned the question of confession, the young pastor Hönecke was active and soon also took a decisive part. For he had thrown himself into the study of the old Lutheran dogmatists and quickly not only gained a thorough acquaintance with their doctrinal position, but also gained the conviction that any unionistic fraternization not only denies the Lutheran Confessions but also the Gospel itself. His influence contributed greatly to the dissociation of the Wisconsin Synod from the General Council, and he made a strong stand when negotiations with the Missouri Synod were concluded in 1868, which resulted in the mutual recognition of the two bodies. That is why he is also one of those who deserves to be kept in good memory as the founder of the Synodical Conference, which was created in 1870 [sic - 1872].” (In the Foreword of Hoenecke’s Dogmatik, p. IX f; English translation Ev.-Lutheran Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. xix, NPH preface)

- - - - - - - - - (cont'd in Part 3) - - - - - - - - - - -
      It is striking how Schaller highlights the fact that Hoenecke had “thrown himself into the study of the old Lutheran dogmatists”, an activity of Walther that typically draws scorn from some against him, indeed an activity that is ridiculed by… J.P. Koehler.  Koehler actually attempts to set the Lutheran dogmaticians against a true exegesis of Holy Scripture (History, p. 216).  This omitted portion is NOT publicized by today's WELS teachers who publicly raise the study of “exegesis” as superior over the field of “dogmatics” (ref. their Wauwatosa Theology book series).  Perhaps as an oversight, the English translation of Hoenecke's Dogmatik v. 1 by James Langebartels also does not even contain this portion. [2018-01-12: see this 1978 CTQ essay by Henry P. Hamann Jr. for examples of misuse of "exegesis".]
      Some other modern historians may point out that Franz Pieper never mentions in his Dogmatik the names of the other Wisconsin theologians of the so-called “Wauwatosa Theology”.  It is evident to me that Franz Pieper's hope for the future of the Wisconsin Synod lay not with his brother August, certainly not with J.P. Koehler, but with John Schaller.  He is the one that F. Pieper honored by quoting him. —  In the next Part 3, ...

Hönecke 1: WELS finest; Intro; “Analogy of Faith”

[2025-01-03: updated and added links to Koehler's History.]

Adolf Hoenecke

      In the previous post, I lamented how today's Wisconsin Synod (WELS) is turning away from its father in the faith, Adolf Hoenecke.  Although I have pointed out a weakness of Hoenecke in another post, yet he remains one of the great Lutheran theologians of America, and, as we shall see, was revered highly in the Synodical Conference.

      As I was reading Franz Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, volume 1, I ran across a long narrative (pp. 173-174; German text pp. 206-211) extolling the father of the old (German) Missouri Synod, C.F.W. Walther.  The narrative was so long and complementary that I lost track of who actually wrote so well of Walther, thinking it was just Pieper himself.  But as I traced back to the beginning of the quote, I was amazed – the quote was from… Adolf Hoenecke!  Why was this amazing?  Because today's theologians in both the WELS and LC-MS do not want this quote to be publicized:  

• WELS teachers now prefer to honor the deposed Prof. J.P. Koehler over Hoenecke, and 
• LC-MS teachers essentially want both Walther and Pieper downgraded to the point of oblivion.

J.P. Koehler claimed that Hoenecke told him privately in 1878 the following remark about the “Missourians” (History of the Wisconsin Synod, p. 153; IA):

“There is something sectarian about them.” (the Missourians)

This alleged quote that Koehler claims Hoenecke said to him privately has been repeated by other WELS historians without question, implying a reliance on Koehler's personal assertions rather than what was actually published in writing by Hoenecke.

“Analogy of Faith” rejected?

      Another indication that the WELS teachers are following Koehler by downgrading Hoenecke is demonstrated in the English translation of Hoenecke's Evangelical-Lutheran Dogmatics, volume 1, pp. 496-497.  In footnote 112, translator Rev. James Langebartels overturned Hoenecke's strong statement that

“All interpretation must be according to the analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6).” – Hoenecke

This was done by referring to a later journal essay by J. P. Koehler “shortly before Hoenecke's death” and so makes the equally strong statement rejecting Hoenecke's teaching (my emphasis, p. 497, footnote 112):

“By this principle, this interpretation of Romans 12:6 must be rejected…” — (Langebartels/Koehler)

In all my reading of Hoenecke, Koehler, Schaller, and others, I have not read that Hoenecke specifically rejected his own teaching on this point.  Koehler implies that he had Hoenecke's approval for his own attacks, but again someone would have to show me specifically where Hoenecke rejected his own teaching for me to believe this.  And if someone were to demonstrate this, then I would then be able to add another weakness of Hoenecke.  But I have not discovered a shred of evidence in all my reading.  The judgments of Koehler, so honored today in the Wisconsin Synod (example), concerning Hoenecke's teaching are not correct.

“Analogy of Faith” vs. Justification?

      There are two teachers of the WELS who admit that Dr. Hoenecke essentially rejected J.P. Koehler's use of “exegesis” to attempt to override a disagreement with opponents on a  misuse of “analogy of faith”.  Professor Em. Armin Schuetze (former President of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary) quoted Hoenecke (The Synodical Conference: Ecumenical Endeavor, p. 186-7):

“Also by means of exegesis we will not arrive at agreement because our opponents from the very start differ with us in the analogy of faith.” – Hoenecke 

Thankfully, Schuetze lets Hoenecke's statement stand without rebuttal.  Not so with another WELS teacher…

      Prof. John M. Brenner also published the above statement of Hoenecke in his 2012 PhD thesis, p. 130 (download here, PDF; a Jesuit university?), indicating that the source was published in Theologische Quartalschrift, 2 no. 4 (Oct 1905) p. 275 (German text).  Unfortunately Brenner also accepts Koehler's personal opinion that Hoenecke's teaching  (Ibid. p. 118-119; Koehler's History…, p. 243; IA) was in contradiction to Franz Pieper's teaching which is also the teaching of the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article XXVII: (XIII): Of Monastic Vows § 60 & 61 which states:

“Examples ought to be interpreted according to the rule, i.e., according to certain and clear passages of Scripture, not contrary to the rule, that is, contrary to the Scriptures. It is very certain, however, that our observances do not merit the remission of sins or justification.”

Brenner should know better since he defends “Universal Justification” in a 2014 essay, p. 43, yet weakens his own defense by questioning Franz Pieper's strong statement (History, p. 212, 241) that the “analogy of faith” is essentially the doctrine of justification… or what is the same, the clear passages of Scripture (see Apology § 61). — Although Koehler came "out" publicly in January 1904 with his refutation of Pieper's use (also of Luther and the Confessions) of the “analogy of faith”, yet Hoenecke also publicly, in 1909 (posthumously), came out with the Dogmatik books.  Before the Wisconsin Synod struck out on a new path with a new doctrine of Church and Ministry after Hoenecke died, it tried to go against Hoenecke's own teaching by legitimizing a subjective faith, a personal faith (Brenner/Koehler's fides qua creditur, p. 118, 125-6: “The objective meaning of ‘doctrine of faith’ is improbable.”) as the basis for the interpretation of Holy Scripture, ostensibly through a “fresh” approach to “exegesis”. [2017-12-24: slight mods made, added link]

==>> Hoenecke's, Pieper's, Walther's, and Luther's use of “analogy of faith” or “rule of faith” is the Confessional use, the same as the ancient Church.

And so Franz Pieper was the best friend that the Wisconsin Synod ever had by warning its erring teachers against going down their dangerous path (History, p. 212).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      With this background, I want to publicize to the world, along with Franz Pieper, the honor that Adolf Hoenecke paid to C.F.W. Walther, and in the process brings great honor to himself. — But first we are treated to an introduction by Prof. John Schaller... in the next blog post, Part 2.

[2018-01-12: see this 1978 CTQ essay by Henry P. Hamann Jr. for examples of misuse of "exegesis"]
- - - - - - - - - - -   Table of Contents   - - - - - - - - - - - -
Prologue: Doctrine and Life (Focus shift away from doctrinal defense – subjectivism)
Part 1: This intro
Part 2: Schaller's introductory bio of Hoenecke
Part 3: F. Pieper reviews Hoenecke's training; Hoenecke assesses Walther
Part 4: Theology vs “theologizing”; new books, new “Lutheran tradition”
Part 5: Hoenecke itemizes doctrines defended (Wehre) by Walther; Walther / Pieper for Wisconsin's leader

Doctrine & Life — Faith & Life (Luther); “coma” of Missourians

[2025-01-02: corrected, updated and added links to Koehler's works.]

      While browsing through early issues of Der Lutheraner, a short blurb caught my eye.  In was in the 1852 volume 8, p. 128.  I strongly suspect that it was editor Walther who chose this short quote from Luther.  The subject was dear to his heart, as it was to Martin Luther – Doctrine vs. Life.  Since the blurb did not identify the source of this quote, I spent some time using the Index to Luther's Works on the passage of Gal. 5:17 … and finally found it on page 56 of Volume 40.  It is contained in the item “Letter to the Princes of Saxony Concerning the Rebellious Spirit” (St. L XVI:12-13 [corrected], WA 15, 210-221).  So I decided to republish this short excerpt without having to re-translate it myself.  The full German text is here.  All emphasis is mine except the enlarged text which follows the same emphasis as Der Lutheraner. 

“They claim that we do not live as we teach, and do not have the Spirit that produces such fruits. I would allow them to make this claim, for then we could plainly discern that it is not a good spirit that speaks through them. We ourselves confess (and need no heavenly voice and lofty spirit to tell us) that we regrettably do not do everything we ought to do. In fact, St. Paul tells us in Gal. 5:17 that it will never be different, as long as flesh and spirit are on earth together, and opposed to each other. I do not perceive any particular fruit of the Allstedtian [Anabaptists] spirit, except that he wants to do violence and destroy wood and stone. Love, peace, patience, goodness, gentleness, have been very little in evidence so far. It doesn’t want its fruits to be that common. By the grace of God I can, however, point to much fruit of the Spirit on our part. If it is a question of boasting, I, the least and most sinful person, am willing to set myself alone over against all the fruits of all the spirits of Allstedt, no matter how greatly he [Münzer] criticizes my life. It is not a fruit of the Spirit to criticize a doctrine by the imperfect life of the teacher. For the Holy Spirit criticizes false doctrine while bearing with those who are weak in faith and life, as Paul teaches in Rom. 14:1 ff. and 15:1 and everywhere else.” — Martin Luther 

— — — — — — — — — — — —

J. P. Koehler

      How does this quote have application for today?  When Prof. J. P. Koehler was deposed from his professorship in the Wisconsin Synod in 1930, there was a faction that followed him.  Their chief publication was given the title Faith-Life: the periodical of the Protest'ant Conference.  Inadvertently this title exposed their error for they tended to focus on what was wrong with the "life" rather than to maintain and defend the pure doctrine.  This is mirrored by Koehler's own attempt to promote the discipline of “exegesis” at the expense of “dogmatics”, which teaches the doctrines of the Bible.  One might wonder that this would not apply to today's Wisconsin Synod, but that would be a mistake, for almost everywhere one turns to among teachers and leaders in today's WELS, with a few notable exceptions, one finds praise for J.P. Koehler, not Adolf Hoenecke, its father in the faith.

      And how did Koehler characterize the "Missourians" who faithfully defended the Bible's doctrines through their adherence to pure doctrine, while he endeavored to use "politics in the church" to create dissension?  He said (History of the Wisconsin Synod,  p. 219):

“…the Missourians… coma of orthodox infallibility”. 

Koehler's “coma” comment was like the “theological diapers” slur that the Ohio Synod's Matthias Loy hurled against Franz Pieper. — Yes, followers of this blog are subjecting their minds to being "comatose", as Koehler claimed.  But Luther says:

“…the Holy Spirit criticizes false doctrine while bearing with those who are weak in faith and life.”

No one in the church was more tolerant of a weak faith, a weak life, than Martin Luther.  And no one was greater at criticizing false doctrine in the church than Martin Luther and... the old (German) Missouri Synod.

[2025-01-03: see my later series on Koehler's misdirected "exegesis" theology.]