Ecumenical Lutheranism (F.Pieper - 1930) - Part 2 (Concordia Journal, 1975)

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1), reprinting the English translation, from the first issue of Concordia Journal, of Franz Pieper's “Vorwort” (Foreword) to the first issue of Concordia Theological Monthly. — Why would the LC-MS in 1975 think to publish Franz Pieper's own writing, without any criticism, in English? ... I claim the same reason for my republication of Concordia Journal's 1975 article in 2018.
      Please note that the Concordia Journal translation has been changed: (1) italicized words corresponding to German emphasis have been changed to bold (compare to German text); (2) where the 1975 translation missed some emphasized words, I added the emphasis back in; (3) where Boecler missed adding Pieper’s few emphases in Luther’s “Great Confession”, I added them back in; (4) hyperlinks added to the references; (5) cross-references from the St. Louis Edition to the American Edition of Luther’s Works were added in places. — All bold words are Pieper's emphasis. All highlighting is by BackToLuther. Minor additions are prefaced with “BTL:”.

Franz Pieper's Foreword to Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. 1, No. 1

Translation by Paul H. F. Boecler  —  Part 2 (cont'd from Part 1)

“Lutheranism” has a sharply defined theological meaning for us. It is “ecumenical” when the whole world acknowledges the truth and validity of its message determined by Matt. 28:19-20, which reads: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

We are speaking of the kind of Lutheranism which is mindful of the rule in the family of God, the Christian church, stated in 1 Peter 4:11, “Whoever speaks (in the Christian church), as one who utters oracles of God.” We have in mind that kind of Lutheranism which will listen obediently to the admonition of Christ until the last day—John 8:31-32: “If you continue in My Word [or, “in My teaching”], you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

       The objection that the Scripture passages just cited do not apply to the Lutheran Church particularly, but to the whole Christian church or all Christians in general, remains invalid. The Lutheran Church never professes to hold to something other besides the Christian doctrine, to be one “denomination” among the many other “denominations,” to add one more cipher to the number of denominations. On the contrary, she desires to teach and confess only what the Lord of the church has commanded all Christians, and in particular all who undertake to instruct others, to teach and confess. 

Regarding its teachings, genuine Lutheranism is always neither more nor less than uncorrupted Christianity, “Christianity pure and simple,” or as it was recently said during discussion on church unity [BTL: missing in translation: “in China”], “Genuine Lutheranism is ecumenical Christianity.” (Lehre und Wehre, LXXV [1929], 234 [“das echte Lutherum ökumenisches Christentum ist.”])

Genuine Lutheranism is the same in all countries. As far as doctrine is concerned, there is no specifically German Lutheranism. Rather, all German Lutheranism which rightfully bears this name is ecumenical Lutheranism. In matters of doctrine there is no specifically American Lutheranism. The same holds true of all geographical or national claims to be Lutheran—South American, European, Asian, Australian, etc.

Ecumenical Lutheranism also knows of no further development of Lutheran doctrine. It may become necessary in the course of time “to use more and different words than are found in the Scriptures,” as Luther once said to justify the use of the ecclesiastical term homoousios [BTL: “of one substance”] (St. Louis ed., XVI, 2211 f. [BTL: Am. Ed., LW 41, 82-83]). But by the use of “different and more words,” true Lutheranism in all times always brings to expression only that doctrine which already is found clearly revealed in the Scriptures. 

This is so because ecumenical Lutheranism holds to the Holy Scriptures as God’s own, infallible, majestic Word, to which the church even, up to Judgment Day dare add nothing, even as she is also not authorized to detract in the least from it. As the Lutheran Church of the 16th and 17th centuries was bound by the word “whoever speaks, as one who utters oracles of God,” so it is also the case with the church of the 20th century, and even to the end of days. The so-called further development of Lutheran [CONCORDIA JOURNAL/January 1975, p. 16] doctrine is based on the ruinous error, intentional or unintentional, that the Holy Scripture is not God’s own infallible and clear Word. Those who are held captive by this error, even though they are regarded to be “leading men” in the Lutheran Church, are standing in decided opposition to “ecumenical Lutheranism.”

Ecumenical Lutheranism holds itself to be bound by Christ’s command to teach Christ’s Word— neither more nor less. Therefore it is also a part of the true character of ecumenical Lutheranism to refuse the right of existence within the church to all deviations from the teaching of Christ. All teachers who are guilty of such deviations are to be shunned as “false prophets,” and this is to be done in compliance with the commands of Christ and His apostles: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15). “Take heed that no one leads you astray. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray” (Matt. 24:4-5). “Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). And the disciple, the one lying close to the breast of Jesus, “the disciple of love,” John, warns against churchly fraternization with all who do not bring this doctrine of Christ: “If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine (the doctrine of Christ, v. 9), do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting (as brother in the faith), for he who greets him shares his wicked work” (2 John 10-11). What has just been said also belongs to the character of “ecumenical Lutheranism.” These words of exhortation are valid not only for Christians of the apostolic church but are certainly intended for Christians in all places and for all times.

This ecumenical Lutheranism is the Lutheranism of Luther, and of the Lutheran Church expressed in its symbols. Luther powerfully inculcates the Christian duty lovingly and patiently to bear with the weak. He warns about displaying overweening arrogance against the weak by the reminder that he who is weak today could well be strong tomorrow, and the reverse could also occur. But Luther will never tolerate an attempt by the weak to use their weakness as the source and norm of Christian doctrine. In case they appeal to [BTL: missing: the] “love,” he offers the well-known sharp remark that this sort of “love” should be cursed to the bottom of hell, because it is the kind which will not permit God’s Word alone to bring about unity. Instead, “love” puts itself in the place of God’s Word as the means of unification.

[BackToLuther: StL. IX 555 – LW 26, 424-425, Luther’s “Lectures on Galatians”: “A curse upon any love and harmony whose preservation would make it necessary to jeopardize the Word of God!”, StL. IX, 645 f. – LW 27, 38: “A curse on a love that is observed at the expense of the doctrine of faith.”; StL IX 831 § 40 – this reference is from Luther’s exposition of Ephesians (Eph. 6:12), apparently not yet translated. Here is what Pieper is referring to, from the latter half of § 40 (German text), translated by BackToLuther: “No, dear man, do not give me peace and unity, over which one loses the Word of God; because that would already lose eternal life and everything. It is not a matter of giving way here, of granting anything to you or of some man to love, but the Word should be given the way to all things, whether he is called enemy or friend. For this is not for the sake of external or worldly unity and peace, but for the sake of eternal life. The Word and the doctrine should make Christian unity or fellowship; where it is equal and united, the other will well follow; if not, then there is no unity. Therefore, tell me only of no love or friendship, where one wants to break the Word or faith; for that is not called love, but the Word brings eternal life, God's grace and all the heavenly treasures.”]

[Concordia Journal Editor: Here Pieper calls attention to the numerous references to the terms “weak,” “the weak in faith,” and “weakness” (BTL: or “schwach”, “die Schwachen”, “Schwachgläubige”, “Schwachheit”) found in Luther’s works, St. Louis ed., XXIII, 1645 ff.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -   continued in Part 3   - - - - - - - - - - - -
      So much from this installment sticks in my mind, for example Luther's curse on any love that overruns doctrine.  But also especially the deceptiveness used by “the weak to use their weakness as the source and norm of Christian doctrine”.  These weak teachers will especially want to use "love" as a wedge to relax on certain doctrines of the Christian faith.  I am reminded of the striking example of Dr. Carl S. Meyer as one of the greatest examples of users of this deception as he poured out his weakness of indifferentism in the 1956 meeting of the Synodical Conference – 25 years after Franz Pieper died.  He appealed to the protesting brethren (Wisconsin Synod, Ev. Lutheran Synod) on p. 15 (see this blog post):

Carl S. Meyer

“This unity is a unity in love...” - Dr. Carl S. Meyer

To Carl S. Meyer, Martin Luther's reply would be:

       “Cursed be your 'love'!”

In the next Part 3…

“Ecumenical” vs Ecumenical: Pieper/Walther/Luther speak (1930/1975) - Part 1

      There is a term “Lutheran Catholicity” that has been used for quite a few years by theologians, perhaps A. C. Piepkorn started it in the LC-MS, maybe Berthold von Schenk caused its widespread use... or have all LC-MS theologians used it since about 1947?  Whoever started using it in the LC-MS, they had in mind the same meaning as an earlier term used in Franz Pieper's day:

“Ecumenical Lutheranism”.

But the switch to the term “catholicity” from “ecumenicity” actually exposes a lack of propriety among true Lutherans who avoid (Rom. 16:17) the Roman Catholic church.  Rome has robbed the term “catholic” just as the Greek Orthodox church has robbed the term “orthodox” of its true meaning.  The later modernist Lutheran teachers have in mind to condition the thinking of the laity to ease their way into thinking of the Catholic Church as having changed in substance since Vatican II.
      So what is truly ecumenical? That question is best answered by Franz Pieper, the clearest Lutheran teacher of the last 130 years to address this subject matter, whether it be on "catholicity" or “ecumenicity”.  In the foreword to the very first issue of the Concordia Theological Monthly (CTM) journal, Pieper poured out his heart to his church, to instruct and to warn it against falling into the modernism enveloping the world's “Lutheranism” and Christianity in general.  In the January, 1930 issue, Franz Pieper wrote the “Vorwort” or Foreword to take on this subject in a few short pages… but it was in the German language, now a foreign, unknown language to practically all American Lutherans.
      After the “explosion” in the LC-MS during the Walkout of 1974, Concordia Seminary was attempting to get back onto a firmer Lutheran footing.  And, dear God!... the editor of the newly named successor to CTM, Concordia Journal (CJ), chose to publish an English translation of Pieper's 1930 “Vorwort”.  This was done by a pastor in the field who apparently had been called to the Seminary “to help in the days of need and great stress” (p. 20).  More on the translator later.
      I stumbled across this essay recently and was joyfully surprised to find such an essay in CJ, a journal that has decidedly fallen off from its earliest attempts to deal with the traumatic events of 1974.  I was so impressed… that I decided to follow in the spirit of the 1975 CJ and republish Pieper's essay again!  I think another 40+ years is long enough to realize once again that its former great teacher was exactly right on this matter… and that all the later LC-MS theologians who use the tiresome term “catholicity” are giving mixed theology at best, or have completely run off the track at worst.
      The following text is exactly as printed with only minor changes.  The reader may follow along with the originally printed pages >> here << downloaded from ATLA Serials, and in clear violation of their stated copyright notice.  If they complain about this, I will have to remove my public download link.

Foreword to Volume I, No. 1

of the

Concordia Theological Monthly

(German original)

January 1930 by Francis Pieper

Translated by Paul H. F. Boecler

The expression “ecumenical Lutheranism” was given much prominence and emphasis during the worldwide discussions of recent years designed to achieve agreement and unification among Lutherans. The stated objective of these discussions or negotiations was not mere Lutheranism, but the achievement of an “ecumenical” Lutheranism. Participants have not always used this expression in the same sense; in fact, they often used it in a wrong sense. The expression “ecumenical Lutheranism” was used interchangeably also with “broad Lutheranism,” meaning a Lutheranism which does not take Christian doctrine as seriously as the Lutheran Church of the 16th and 17th centuries and, in our own day, the “Missourians.”

Open charges were made against the Missourians as “the disturbing element in the Lutheran Church.” There was also no lack of statements to the effect that Missourians will have to be excluded a priori from all discussions if any sort of agreement and unity is to be achieved. This we regret. We desire, by God’s grace, to serve the Lutheran Church in all the world also to this end, that the church of the Reformation, our dear Lutheran Church, may come to a unity which conforms to God’s will. To achieve this, it is necessary that we come to an understanding regarding the correct, that is, Scriptural and also confessionally Lutheran, concept of “ecumenical Lutheranism.”

- - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 2  - - - - - - - - - - 

      Those “disturbing Missourians”!  How horrible they were in the world's eyes, in the eyes of “ecumenical Lutheranism”.  Ah, but Dr. Franz Pieper turns the tables on them and is about to show them (and us) just exactly what Ecumenical Lutheranism really is... in the next Part 2.  I will also reveal a little more about the changes I made from the 1975 English translation, and why my republication offers benefits over just reading the 1975 publication.

= = = = = = = = =   Table of Contents   = = = = = = = = = =
Part 1 – This post
Part 2 – “Genuine Lutheranism is ecumenical Christianity.” … the Lutheranism of Luther.
Part 3 – To agree concerning the doctrines of Gospel; Conversion; Election of Grace; (not Kolb)
Part 4 – One unmatched treasure; attacked from within and without; not Arand
Part 5 – Omitted portion from Luther, part A; three persons, one true God
Part 6 – Omitted portion, part B; no special forgiveness beyond general forgiveness; Robert Preus mystery

Notice to CPH and CHI (Concordia Publishing / Concordia Historical Institute)

      The following is a formal notice addressed especially to Concordia Publishing House, but also to Concordia Historical Institute.  My intention is to publish on this blog (for free) the following previously translated (into English) historical works on the old (German) Missouri Synod.  These translations have been completed long ago but have, for whatever reason, been withheld long enough (far too long) from wide availability to Lutherans of America.  There is no good reason why these were not published long ago, for they breathe a spirit of true historical theology, true Church History.  At times these old authors have been severely questioned by historians and theologians of the LC-MS. That is certainly not a good reason. These works are:

• Christian Hochstetter's A History of the Evangelical Lutheran Missouri Synod in North America and her Doctrinal Controversies  from the Time of the Saxon Emigration  in the Year 1838 until the Year 1884, translated by Walter J. Plischke and Fred Kramer, 1983 (1885 German original).  The following notice was printed on the title page of this manuscript: "© 2005 Concordia Historical Institute".
• Johann Friedrich Köstering's (Koestering) The Emigration of the Saxon Lutherans in the Year 1838…, translated by Pastor Walter J. Plischke in 1978 (1867 German original)
• C. F. W. Walther's Brief Biography of the Late Venerable Pastor John Frederick Buenger, translated by Karl W. Keller in 1973 (1882 German original)

 It is my intention to not only provide free digital access to these works, but also:

1. the full German text in a polished format (perhaps keyed to the English translation),
2. an historical background of each item and in some cases of the translators,
3. hyperlinks to their references, original pages in German, and some of their terms.  

I will show where the LC-MS has questioned the value of these histories and the judgments rendered in them by their authors.  Then these objections and criticisms will be refuted. There are a few notable exceptions to these objections from the LC-MS and I will note these as well.

      If however Concordia Publishing has, in good faith, the full intention of bringing any (or all) of these works to "ink on paper" soon, I will at least delay my publications.  And if they are convincing enough, I will reverse my plans.  I would be happy to furnish to CPH/CHI, at no charge, my work of hundreds of hours of extracting, proofing, and polishing what I have of these works for digital publication.
      So even though CPH may have some idea of exercising a legal claim of copyright, I will claim they have forfeited that right by their negligence lasting many decades.  In some cases, I would suggest the negligence extends beyond a century.
      There are precedents for my action as I have already published in 2015 Pastor Donald E. Heck's translation of Walther's sermons Year of Grace [fixed link].  And last year the complete Epistle Sermons of C.F.W. Walther translated by Pastor Heck were published on my blog.  So they will know I am serious about my intentions.  Although CPH has previously exercised their right of copyright against me, they have not (so far) taken any action against me on these two major sermon books of Walther/Heck.

     There are yet great histories remaining to be translated, as far as I know:

• Martin Guenther's Dr. C. F. W. Walther: Lebensbild, 1890
• J. F. Koestering's Leben und Wirken des Ehrw. Ernst Gerhard Wilh. Keyl, 1882.
• C. J. Hermann Fick's other works here and here
• ... and others.

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

      When do I plan to start releasing these free digital productions?  In the next few months or so…  You, Concordia Publishing or Concordia Historical Institute, have a little time yet to contact me.  After that, these works will no longer cry out to be published, they will be freely available to the world.
      Oh, what treasures I have found!… "more treasures than I knew existed in the training of my youth"!  I cannot stand to see them hidden any longer. (Neither would Prof. Fred Kramer)  The Lutheran Church in America (and the world) cries out for them... indeed, this blog is viewed regularly from around the world.

Copernicanism- 1993 LCMS; and a true Bible teacher? Part 2 (for “Josh”)

      This concludes from Part 1, republishing the most extensive essay on Copernicanism in the recent history of  the LC-MS.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      While studying Dr. Patrick T. Ferry's essay in detail, it occurred to me that I actually had read it in the 1990s, but was so distressed by it, that I blotted it out of my mind.  I was then returning to my Christian faith, a faith in the Bible, reading Luther, etc.  But here was a great scholar who seemed to be using his great knowledge to confuse what Martin Luther actually taught. Then in 2001, I ran across C.F.W. Walther's very short, very bold statement about Copernicus and Copernicanism, and I was "hooked".  I knew “the sun stood still” (as Joshua commanded Joshua 10:13) and so an unbelieving world was at war with the Bible. But how could I stand against a world of theological scholars?

      Author Ferry makes no mention of the later teachers of the Lutheran Church, and others, who taught against Copernicanism:

• C.F.W. Walther
• Franz Pieper’s teaching in his Christian Dogmatics 
• The old (German) Missouri Synod’s writings, including J.C.W. Lindemann’s powerful defense and Pasche’s writings
• other Lutheran theologians
• several notable German scientists of the 1800’s (or 19th century) who at least questioned Copernicanism

Some might say that my list is unfair to Dr. Ferry because he only focused on one aspect of this topic: Luther’s (and the “University of Wittenberg”) actual response to the new learning and his influence on learning in general.  To that I would ask them if they think Ferry intended to remain neutral in his presentation as to whether Copernicanism was objective truth or not? Does anyone, after reading Ferry's essay, really think that Dr. Ferry believes that Copernicanism is not true?... that the reality is that the Sun moves about the Earth?
      One way that one might summarize Ferry's essay would be its use of the words (conjunctions) "however", "but", "nevertheless", "contrary to", and "yet".  These are the connecting words from his (grudging?) admission of Luther's and Melanchthon's Scriptural rejection of Copernicanism.  I recall now from 20+ years ago how every one of those conjunctions was like an arrow directed at my weak faith that wanted to believe the Bible – like my young LC-MS correspondent "Josh" does.

“... shaping an intellectual milleu” (Ferry, p. 266)

… or Christians?

      Make no mistake, author Ferry wants to be taken not on scientific grounds, but theological grounds. He wrote for a theological journal. He now heads a “Lutheran” university. But he voices no Scriptural grounds to reject Copernicanism … like Luther and Melanchthon do – Lutheran teachers who never explicitly renounced their Scriptural grounds.

A personal question for Dr. Ferry:

Did your father-in-law, Dr. John W. Saleska, also teach in his Concordia Bible Institute (and at CTS) as you do in this essay (p. 265), that 

“Contrary to the assumption that Luther and Melanchthon obstructed the spread of Copernicanism, each played a role in its eventual dissemination.”

... and so Martin Luther "shaped an intellectual milleu" that allowed not just a Copernican Theory, but Copernicanism?  Did Dr. Saleska make your essay required reading for his Concordia Bible Institute?  I wonder that he was not comfortable with your essay on Copernicanism judging by his firm stand for a "young earth" creation here. (Hmmm... does CUW also always teach the objective truth of creation in its science classes?)

      I will never forget the picture that Dr. Ferry shares of Dr. Saleska's highly marked and aged KJV Bible  (“the version used in heaven”!) as long as I live.  What a shock – to see an LC-MS teacher with such an obvious reverence for Holy Scripture!  Would that his son-in-law take up that Bible and run with it as his father-in-law did!

Wasn't Dr. John W. Saleska 

a “Biblicist”?

Wasn't he what A. D. White called an

“ancient believing text-worshiper”?

Saleska's motto was “Christ in Every Word” (Concordia Bible Institute).  Does that include even in Joshua 10:13 – "and the sun stood still"? ... or not?

To “Josh”:

      I don't know if you are still following this blog, but I wonder that you may have been a graduate of CUW.  You came to me privately about 2 years ago and related, as I reported about you 2 years ago, that you …

“…were a member in the LC-MS, not long out of higher education, accepted the Copernican system, but considered yourself to be truly following Christian doctrine, was well aware of Luther’s position supporting geocentricity and the old Missouri’s anti-Copernicanism stand.  You had been taught in the LC-MS that it could be taught from Scripture that Scripture does not literally teach geocentrism.”

I then quoted you directly in my concluding blog and revealed further that you came to me and you asked me for counsel:

“Do you have any advice for me while I sort out these issues?”

I tell you now that whether or not you are a graduate of CUW, I suspect that the counsel of Dr. Saleska is as good as mine even if he may be weak in specifics on “Science and Religion”. I cannot boast of a Bible like his Bible, and he points to the Holy Bible as Truth, i.e. “Christ in every Word” (“I am the Truth…”, “Thy Word is Truth” – John 14:6, John 17:17).

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

      I want to conclude this blog with a tribute to the joy I found in learning of Dr. Ferry's father-in-law Dr. John Saleska and his Bible teaching:

Rev. Dr. John W. Saleska

A teacher of universal grace.(WayBk)

† September 13, 2017

If I had thought Dr. Saleska was the heart of the LC-MS, I might not have left the LCMS the 2nd time.  But… his son-in-law's essay was no help for my struggling, weak faith in the 1990's. No, that took the teaching of Luther, Walther, and Franz Pieper to ground my faith 100% in the Bible.  I look forward to rejoicing with Saleska in the hereafter -- and seeing his heavenly smile in person.  Take a good look at the above picture, and see why he has the smile of a Christian on the right side.  That is a perfect picture of what everyone wants today…"mental health".

Copernicanism- 1993 LCMS (Patrick Ferry- 25 years ago); Part 1

Rev. Dr. Patrick T. Ferry
President
Concordia Univ.–Wisconsin

[2018-01-16: Comments have come in below with pertinent added documentation]
      At the risk of over covering the issue of Copernicanism, I am addressing it once more.  This was occasioned by recently coming across an essay in Concordia Theological Quarterly, October 1993, that may be the greatest attempt by any teacher in the LC-MS to put the matter of "Copernicanism" to rest. This is the ONLY essay in CTS-FW Media under the labels "Astronomy-History" and "Copernicus, Nicolas, 1473-1543". The author was unfamiliar to me, but a little research quickly turned up that Patrick T. Ferry is now Rev. Dr. Patrick T. Ferry, President of Concordia University–Wisconsin since 1997. So Dr. Ferry can be considered a theological scholar for today, with a M.Div. from CTS-FW and a PhD in European History.

      One of the major benefits of using the following reproduction of Dr. Ferry's extensive essay is the addition of reciprocal hyperlinks to all footnotes for effortless navigation. The reader will notice that I have inserted many of my own comments in red text.  This is only because Ferry is quite a master scholar for today.  He knows many facts about the Reformation, he can translate from the old theological languages, he has an understanding of modern philosophy, he has read much from modern theology, etc.  But because he sets out essentially with the notion that Copernicanism is objective truth (since "science" has "proved" it so), so he must, as a "Lutheran scholar", try to accommodate "Wittenberg" with today's "Science".  And so, because this notion flies directly in the face of Holy Scripture, Ferry must be forcefully refuted.

      There is additional material covered by Dr. Ferry that was not covered in my blog series for "Josh". An example is Melanchthon's own writings specific to "Copernicanism", p. 279.  This was a case where Ferry's scholarly ability was actually helpful, even if he immediately works to accommodate Melanchthon's own testimony, as he does Luther's.

      It took me perhaps 20+ years to totally forget about this essay.  How happy I am to have completely refuted it even without directly addressing it in my Copernicanism blog series.  And so now, with a firmer faith and the immense help of Internet resources (Google Books, Google Translate, etc.) I can return to Ferry's essay in full confidence of not only the truth of Holy Scripture, but also in the knowledge that the true Evangelical Lutheran Church always held to the a priori truth of the Bible, even where the Bible clearly taught natural science incidentally.
[2018-01-30: added links to pages of B.A. Gerrish essay “Reformation and the Rise of Science” in footnotes; 2018-01-29: added links to pages of Werner Elert’s The Structure of Lutheranism book noted in footnotes, 3 places]

A direct link to the above Google document is available here. Uncommented version here.
[2018-01-29: added links to pages of Werner Elert’s The Structure of Lutheranism book noted in footnotes, 3 places]

      I was amazed that I had not discovered this essay in my year-long research of this topic.  This is the only essay that I could find that addressed this "hot button" topic in any meaningful way in the LC-MS. I was also amazed that my blog series not only answered most of Ferry’s points, but went beyond it on the real issue of what is objective truth, something that Ferry only implies. This essay clearly intends that the reader consider Copernicanism or "heliocentrism" to be objective truth. Now Dr. Ferry may admit that he is in agreement with me that the Lutheran Church allowed theoretical science that was objectively impossible.  But then again, he is in today’s Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, a synod that has for many decades, without interruption by a so-called Walkout in 1974, spearheaded the effort to accommodate the Bible to “Science” on this issue of Copernicanism.
      My comments grew to be too much for one blog post, so I am splitting it up into 2-parts.  In the next Part 2, I comment further on Dr. Ferry, but also on someone I discovered who was very close to him, but one who is actually an antidote to his essay.

("Josh" -- are you still listening?)

[2018-01-16: Comments have come in below with pertinent added documentation]

● ● ● ● ● ●    [2018-03-26: Added full text of above document into a "Read more »" section below]  ● ● ● ● ●

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cascione then masterfully exposes the fallacy in this statement: 

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

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

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

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

Hoenecke 5: Walther highlights; praise for Hönecke

[2018-01-27: added information in red text below]
       This concludes from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series repristinating the praise of the fathers of the Synodical Conference, especially Adolf Hoenecke.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      This last portion of the quote from Adolf Hoenecke shows especially why Franz Pieper called Hoenecke a “true theologian”.  Hoenecke sums up the greatest features of the theology of 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.  

—————— (concluded from Part 4) —————— 

The Scripture was for Walther God's Word and nothing else.  He could not be shaken from the doctrine of Inspiration of the old-church. This is what Rohnert [Wilhelm Rohnert, 1837-1908] praises in him, that in the last decades he probably was the most emphatic one for the old dogmatic verbal inspiration. (Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, p. 105  [German text]) Walther held fast to the inspiration of the Scriptures, because he saw that if here one in the least way gave in, one would give up that Scripture alone is the source and norm of theology.

“Open questions” are not recognized by Walther as the Iowa Synod does. It is not required that the symbolical books treat a doctrine to make it a doctrine of the church. The confessions make no new doctrines of the church, but only represent them.  Scripture is the decisive factor.  Therefore, the Bible's teaching is also the doctrine of the church, although it has not yet been dealt with in the symbols. (Lehre and Wehre 14, 133 ff.) Walther, however, highly esteemed the confessions. Everywhere he draws on them in his writings and, in addition, the statements of the true Lutheran teachers. But his theology is not, in the bad sense, a theology of repristination, as the modern theologians over in the old country label it; for with him it is not the old dogmaticians or the Symbols [Confessions] that tip the scales, but Holy Scripture. [see Hochstetter’s testimony]

As a Scripture theologian, he had no special doctrines which he has preferred to treat, but it has been the case that he was forced to treat a number of doctrines a great deal and worked through them vigorously:

the doctrines of the Church and Ministry over against the Buffalo Synod, the doctrines of Election and Conversion against the Ohio and Iowa Synods, the doctrine of justification and reconciliation against the Erlangen theology and sectarianism of this land.”

= = = = = =  End of quote from Hoenecke  = = = = = = =

      In Hoenecke's itemization of all the distinguishing teachings of Walther, I was reminded of Franz Pieper's series of essays "C.F.W. Walther as Theologian".  I wonder that Hoenecke, to a certain extent, used Pieper's highlights from this series as he gave his own assessments.  So to help readers (like myself!) review again the corresponding highlights between Hoenecke's highlights above and Pieper's essays, here is a listing with hyperlinks:

• “Scientific" Theology -- see this blog post, Part 5.
• Verbal Inspiration -- see this blog post, Part 3a.
• “Open Questions” -- See this blog post Part 3b in the “Open Questions" essay.  See this blog post, Item #9 for full info on where to read Walther's essay (free and otherwise) “The False Arguments for the Modern Theory of Open Questions”. 
• Confessionalism -- see this blog post Part 3b in the “Open Questions" essay
• Church and Ministry -- See these blog posts: Part 6, Part 7. When I re-read Hoenecke's agreement with Walther on “Church and Ministry”, I had to marvel at the attempts by later Wisconsin theologians to break this unity of doctrine. (See Pieper CD 1, pp. 174-175) 
• Election of Grace -- See these blog posts, Parts 15, 16, 17, 18. Also Brief Statement, §§ 35-40
• Conversion: -- See these blog posts: Part 13a, Part 14.
• Justification -- See these blog posts, Parts 10, 11, 12. 

       What is immediately apparent by the above listing is the agreement Hoenecke would have with the (old) Missouri Synod's Brief Statement of 1932.  But I could find only one reference to it in today's Wisconsin Synod's public “What We Believe” section – in the “Statement on the Antichrist”.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that in past years, the WELS was much more frequent in citing the Brief Statement. [2018-01-27: In 1953, a WELS committee warned the LC-MS "... the Synodical Conference in convention assembled to request the Missouri Synod to repeal the Common Confession and to return to the clarity and decisiveness in setting forth the Scriptural and historical doctrinal position of the Synodical Conference for which the Brief Statement sets an excellent precedent." Proceedings of the Forty-Second Regular Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (1953), 157 -- see this essay, p. 319, n 75]

      What would Walther's counsel be for today's Wisconsin Synod?  It would be the same as to his own Missouri Synod in his 1860 Letter from Zurich (CTM  vol. 61; digitized text doc here, p. 654-655):

“This principle [Rom. 12:6 ‘analogy or measure of faith’] is [not] properly made use of when everyone wants to find everything that is in the Bible by himself and does not want to accept, as a pupil, the mined treasures of Scriptural doctrine from those granted the gift of Scriptural interpretation in high measure.”

Walther would have in mind not only Martin Luther, but also the Lutheran dogmatists of Lutheran Orthodoxy, and... his fellow leader in the Synodical Conference, Adolf Hoenecke – not the later J.P. Koehler who would throw all the above out with his misuse of “exegesis”.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      I conclude this series with Pieper's final assessment of his mentor Adolf Hoenecke:

“In this account of Walther, 

Hönecke describes himself 

as a [true] theologian at the same time, 

as is apparent from the attached judgments.”

                                                 — Dr. Franz Pieper