Pieper as Theologian-3: Sola Scriptura!; Scaer's confusion

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting the full essay "Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian" by President Ludwig Fuerbringer. — In this portion, we see that nearly 50 years before the Brief Statement was adopted in 1932, Prof. Franz Pieper, at age 32, was delivering an essay at the Synod (in front of Walther) on "Scripture Doctrine".  And we note that he includes in the categories of Scriptural inerrancy two additional items not listed in the abbreviated § 1 of the Brief Statement.  What is so striking for today's modern theology (including the LC-MS) is just how far it has strayed from the "old paths" – Jer. 6:16.

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

Translation by BackToLuther. Original publication in CTM, vol. 2, October, 1931 (Part 1, p. 721-729); underlining follows original emphasis, all hyperlinks, comments in [ ] brackets, and highlighting are mine.

Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian.

by Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer

(Part 3, cont'd from Part 2)

Sola Scriptura.

As early as 1884, when the struggle for the sola gratia in the American Lutheran Church was still in progress, Pieper presented to his synod at their meeting in St. Louis a paper with individual theses reading as follows: [see here for download]

[Page 724]

“Thesis 1.

“A doctrine is scriptural doctrine only if it is based on the explicit word of Scripture, or what is the same, if it is taken and judged solely from the passages that are directly dealing with that doctrine.

Brief Statement of 1932
foretold in 1884 Synod essay

“A. What we hereby say. It is not that all the words with which we speak of a doctrine (or the ecclesiastical and theological expression) must be written in the Scripture, but that everything that is stated in a doctrine must be revealed in the words of Scripture.

“B. What we hereby reject: a) the derivation of a doctrine from the so-called whole of Scripture [Schriftganzen  – Brief Statement, § 2] or from passages which do not deal with this doctrine [i.e. John 6 for Holy Communion]; b) the rejection or modulation of a doctrine clearly expressed in the word of Scripture for the sake of so-called necessary implications or in the interest of a so-called system.

“Thesis 2.

“Only if we cling to this, will remain

“a. the individual articles of the Christian doctrine standing and still have the faith in place, only then is

“b. a divine certainty in our hearts and the right determination against all error; only then will

“c. the Christians be left with the right given to them by Christ to test all doctrine, only then do we have

“d. the promise that in our doctrines, God will also give people and listeners who will accept it”. (19th Synodical Report of the Missouri Synod, p. 161)

And when we then compare his dogmatics and his many articles in Lehre und Wehre, to which we here particularly want to deal with because they are not equally accessible to everyone, his position is always quite firm and clear.

He is unreservedly and unequivocally committed to the supreme principle of theology, that Holy Scripture is the Word of God, infallible and inerrant in matters of doctrine and of life, but also in so-called minor matters, in historical, archaeological, geographical, astronomical and other matters, the absolute and sole source and norm of all teaching. This divine revelation in the Scriptures does not need first the human interpretation and explanation – Pieper could occasionally speak harsh words against the interpreters of Scripture, who by their explanations and glosses twist and distort the Scripture – but is in itself, in its own wording clear and understandable and therefore decides all questions of doctrine and life. And Pieper justified and defends this position again and again in the most sharp and emphatic way,

and would not be tired of reproaching modern theology, especially Germany, but also of America, with their apostasy from this supreme principle of theology, from the divinely inspired and therefore inerrant Scripture. [Page 725] He wrote, among other things, the article “Against the Later Falsification of the Scripture Principle” (30, 329), a continuation and further elaboration of the above mentioned article of 1884. Then when the German publication “Testimonies from the Evangelical Lutheran Church”, while finding broad agreement with Dr. Pieper’s convention lecture to the Synodical Conference of 1888 “On the Unity of Faith”, also criticised it in some points, precisely in the main point, Pieper treated this in detail in a special article [LuW 35 (1889), 265 ff.]: “The Scripture Word as source and norm of all Christian doctrines, held against the criticism of Pastor [A.] Lieberknecht and the Principles of Modern Theology”. [Full German text] Pastor Lieberknecht, influenced in this point by modern theology, had particularly objected to the sentences of the paper in which Pieper had said:

“We need in all doctrines only to confirm [nachzusagen, or repeat] what God’s Word so clearly says to us.” “All uncertainty and distraction in matters of Christian doctrine comes only from the fact that one sets aside the clear Word of God and does not want to say what the Word of God says.” The reviewer had described this as a lightly, less valued art and even let the irony take a bit of rein. Then Pieper replied as follows – and we would like to print the whole version with its clear refutation of the popular objections –:

“How is this repeating of the Word of God for revealed doctrine meant? Pastor Lieberknecht can not attribute folly to us, as if we merely wanted to speak of spiritual things in words of Scripture, and if he wished to do so, it would be in conflict with our own explanations given in detail in the report. We are talking about a mere repeating of what is revealed in God’s Word, in the sense that no preacher or teacher should add anything of his own to the teaching of Christian doctrine, but merely present what is revealed in the clear Word; we speak so particularly in contrast to modern theory and practice, that the individual articles of the Christian doctrine are not taken from the clear words of Scripture which reveal the doctrine, but must first be found by certain general Christian principles by way of construction.  

= = = = = = = =  continued in Part 4  = = = = = = = =
Once More to John 6:

The last point Pieper makes against “modern theory and practice” directly addresses the danger of Dr. David P. Scaer's use of John 6 to support the doctrine of Holy Communion beyond the very Words of Institution – the “clear words of Scripture”.  I remember to this day, from the days of my youth, being taught in confirmation class that Communion was based on just those Words, God's clear Words: “This Is My Body, This Is My Blood”.  Prof. Scaer's work only makes me think these clear words of institution are not enough…  to believe them.  Could it rather be that Prof. Scaer is weak in his “sacramental theology”? 

To Prof. David Scaer: Don't you believe the clear Words of Institution?

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

There was no hesitation or unclearness in Dr. Franz Pieper's teaching.  That is why, in other words (ref. this blog series):

“God’s Word and Luther’s Doctrine Pure

Shall To Eternity Endure.”

In the next Part 4...

Pieper as Theologian-2: Dogmatics; John 6 confusion

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting the full essay "Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian" by President Ludwig Fuerbringer. — In this portion, we hear the balance of Fuerbringer's introductory paragraphs. — Prof. Fuerbringer reveals his own studious attitude towards Pieper's masterful Christian Dogmatics, like I found myself in 20 years ago. He then relates the testimonies of two unnamed theologians outside of the Missouri Synod... and I am still speculating on who he is speaking about.  But first we start off this segment with a quote that I will never forget... as a Christian.

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

Translation of first 3 pages by pastor of Australian ELCR, slightly modified. Original publication in CTM, vol. 2, October, 1931 (Part 1, p. 721-729); underlining follows original emphasis, all hyperlinks and highlighting are mine.

Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian.

by Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer

(Part 2, cont'd from Part 1)

… and that in order to understand the truth, one must stand in the truth.  This educational presentation is then demonstrated sharply, clearly and certainly from God’s Word as the sole source and norm of all doctrine and confirmed as Lutheran with evidence from the Confessions of the Lutheran Church and the writings of it’s fathers. Here also the academic nature does not fall short, but rather, anyone who knows and uses this work must recognize that all the necessary text-critical, exegetical, historical and doctrinal historical explanations, especially in the comments, are presented. And finally, we say of this work of imperishable glory, that the whole presentation is not only a reason theology but also a heart theology, practical in the full and best sense of the word, and so meets the purpose of each correct Dogmatics like all true theology, namely, to speak by Pieper with the words of our old, so esteemed and thoroughly studied theologians, ad sensum sacrae Scripturae inveniendum atque aliis demonstrandum .... salutem ad hominum Deique honorem (to discover the sense of Sacred Scripture and the other to demonstrate.... for man’s salvation and God’s honor, ed.).

I may well say at this point that I carefully read through Pieper's Dogmatics

●  when each volume appeared after the other,

●  from beginning to end

●  word for word

●  with the pencil in hand,

●  to take notes

●  with the greatest interest and benefit;

and if there are frequently found repetitions, then it is partly due to the emergence of the work from very different periods, and partly due to impress with deliberate effort certain basic truths in ever-changing connections. What [page 723] has been said here has also been expressed by theologians outside of our own Synod.  

In 1924, a German university professor in Systematics, who belongs to the sharpest theological-philosophical thinkers of the present, but is definitely not on our theological position, wrote me: “The Dogmatics of Dr Pieper is already known and valuable to me. I find many thoughts that are familiar and meaningful. I am particularly pleased of an extensive agreement in the doctrine of the sacraments.

But especially important to me is that the principle controlling the whole dogmatics is to go back to Luther. This has also been for my theology the determining point of view. We stand, however, in different historical connections than the American Lutherans, so that in detail probably some differences show; but nevertheless it is also with us a deepening in Luther’s thoughts the longer, to notice all the more.” And recently a German-American theologian, who has struggled through in hot battles with the Lutheran doctrine, wrote me:  “The last nine months were the hardest of my life. [C.H. Little?; Reu? Schmauk?]

Augustine’s interpretation of John chapter 6 about the spiritual enjoyment of the sacred meal was used by the evil enemy to drive me into such confusion, that I almost would have told the Lutheran church farewell.

However, God’s good Spirit bothered me again to get Dr. Pieper’s Dogmatics and to compare the teaching at the hands of Scripture, Luther and the Confessions. Saying heartfelt thanks to God, I have come through his grace now to achieve clarity and inner peace. Whoever looks honestly, today also finds, I have learnt literally…..  Next to the grace of God, Dr. Pieper’s incomparable dogmatic theology has helped me to full peace and clarity. All my doubts and concerns have disappeared.”

Yet if we are preparing now to publish here a short article about Dr. Pieper as a theologian, we want to emphasize just two points, but just the main points of proper biblical-Lutheran theology; and anyone who has read and heard something of Dr. Pieper knows that he arrived at his theology especially on those two points. They are in truth the principles and therefore also the hallmarks of genuine Lutheran theology. These are the two basic truths, that Pieper pronounced as a true Lutheran theologian (who knows how many times) and laid to the heart of the Church, in old, known ways yet ever new connections:

sola Scriptura

and

sola gratia.

= = = = = = = =  continued in Part 3  = = = = = = = =
John, chapter 6

Prof. David Scaer

      Fuerbringer quotes another theologian's struggle over the meaning of John chapter 6.  This has current applications as Prof. David Scaer of Concordia Theological Seminary leads the notion that John chapter 6 refers to Holy Communion (ref. his 2014 essay in CTQ “Once More to John 6” here.)  Scaer even admits in his essay that Martin Luther himself is found to be “flatly denying a sacramental spin to chapter 6 in his lectures on the Fourth Gospel”, but then quotes Luther against Luther.  But we find in Fuerbringer's account how Pieper's Dogmatics rescued this German-American theologian from saying “farewell” to the Lutheran Church. Could we be witnessing another reason why Pieper's Dogmatics is being replaced in today's LC-MS? (We will see later Pieper's condemnation of Scaer's tactic of using unclear passages instead of clear passages.)

 - - - - - - - - - - -

      Fuerbringer then chose two, and only two, topics to highlight Pieper's works: sola Scriptura and sola gratia, not the sacraments. The 'sacramental theology' of Concordia Theological Seminary is exposed for what it is, just as Walther charged the Iowa Synod in 1859, on their

“outward churchianity, on the visibility of the true church, on its ceremonies, rules, and constitution, on the office [of the ministry] as a special rank created by ordination and [on] its privileged dispensation of grace, on the ex opere operato effectiveness of the sacraments (i.e., by the mere use of them, regardless of faith)”

Hmmm... the shoe seems to fit. No wonder Pieper and Walther are hated so much in today's LC-MS. — In the next Part 3, we begin the newly translated material, on sola Scriptura.

Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian, by L. Fuerbringer; Part 1-Intro, reprint

*******  87 years ago today, June 3, 1931 Dr.  Franz Pieper went “home” to Paradise. *******

      In a blog of Nov. 6, 2011, I published a translation of only the first 3 pages of Concordia Seminary President Ludwig Fuerbringer's 1931 essay “Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian” from the journal Concordia Theological Monthly.  Recently I determined to finish the full 17-page essay because it is perhaps the best available summary of Dr. Pieper's life work.  And although the first 3 pages will be largely a “reprint” of the translation done for me by a pastor of the Australian ELCR, yet I have slightly modified it and added hyperlinks to reference some points.  The balance of 14 pages are newly translated.  This series will lead into Fuerbringer's even larger Der Lutheraner essay “Memories of Dr. Franz Pieper”, also from 1931.

      Every time I return to the writings of Ludwig Fuerbringer, it is a bittersweet task to translate him.  I marvel at how well he seemed to understand Pieper, yet I can see the seeds of weakness – he was not strong in the face of the heavy-handed unionism of his colleagues, especially Prof. Theodore Graebner.  He did not stand as firm in the faith against erring American Lutherans as the Synod President Friedrich Pfotenhauer, and he practically fell asleep when later Synod President John W. Behnken ignored doctrinal issues in dialog with other synods, and turned the old (German) Missouri Synod into the “Graebner Synod”, or today's (English) LC-MS. I do not recall that Fuerbringer participated in any inter-synodical meetings, an activity in which his predecessor was very active.  (I have no doubt that Ludwig would be greatly grieved over his son Alfred's practical apostasy, or what Abraham Calov would call “veiled atheism”.)
      But we need not write off all of Fuerbringer's works, for we find that when he wrote of Franz Pieper, immediately after Pieper's passing, he spoke well.  What was written about Fuerbringer in the current Christian Cyclopedia by Prof. Richard R. Caemmerer (1904–1984) appears to be quite misleading in its judgments and speculations. Indeed,  Ludwig, in the following essay, speaks so well of the work of Franz Pieper, that as Christians, we can take true comfort.

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

Translation of first 3 pages by pastor of Australian ELCR, slightly modified. Original publication in CTM, vol. 2, October, 1931 (Part 1, p. 721-729); underlining follows original emphasis, all hyperlinking & highlighting is mine.

[page 721]

Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian.

by Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer

1.

In 1888, almost a year after the death of Dr. Walther on May 7, 1887, began a series of articles under the headline “Dr. C.F.W. Walther as Theologian” (34, 97) in the April issue of Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense) by Professor F. Pieper, the fine young colleague and successor to the presidency of the seminary at St. Louis. These articles went through four years – five appeared in 1888, five in 1889, nine in 1890 and two in 1891, a total of twenty-one articles.  These masterful articles, which well deserve to be reprinted, present by Professor Pieper Walther’s entire theological position on the basis of careful research through his entire literary activity, and Walther’s position treated on every major point of Christian doctrine. Such an article should really appear, now that Dr. Pieper has gone home on June 3, and bring his position in all parts of Christian doctrine to representation.

But such an article would require, as just the series of articles about Walther shows, longer, more detailed study of the publications of Dr. Pieper in books and journals in his more than 50-year public activity from 1878 to 1931, and therefore could appear only after a long period of time and would also, if it should be fairly complete, extend over years.

However, even apart from that just mentioned, it seems that such a series of articles is not so necessary, as was the case for Walther, for from Pieper was to come – and we say this with heartfelt gratitude to God and in grateful remembrance of the departed – what had not come from Walther in spite of his eminent and many-sided activities, namely the preparation of a detailed dogmatics.

Though Walther did have a new edition of J. G. Baier’s Compendium Theologiae Positiva procured, in fact, [page 722] an editio auctior et emendatio (new, improved edition, ed.), as the title says, because he had so many of the most precious additions added in quotations from ancient and modern times, these so-called additamenta (additions, ed.) are more extensive than the original Compendium and are in some sense a dogmatics of Walther and can retain their value over time for all.

It was interesting to me as I looked to see that the first post of Pieper to Lehre und Wehre (“Doctrine and Defense", ed.) was an announcement and recommendation of just this first issue of this work of Walther (24, 371). Dr Pieper, however, was fated to present his own independent presentation of Christian doctrine, and his three-volume Christian Dogmatics in the years 1917 to 1924 appeared (also including the 1928 detailed index volume almost indispensable for the right use of the work) which brought his position on every single point of Christian doctrine, and that is in all points the biblical - Lutheran doctrine.

The work displays all the qualities that always distinguished Pieper’s oral and written presentation: first make clear, definite, and intelligible exposition comprehensible; because Pieper was always vigorously for the principle that anyone who is clear in doctrine, can and must also clearly explain this doctrine; that Christian doctrine is not only the property of scholars, but Christians, ...

= = = = = = = =  continued in Part 2  = = = = = = = =

Fuerbringer testifies that Pieper's Dogmatics is practically Walther's.  And so as today's LC-MS is replacing Pieper's work, they are essentially breaking any ties they may want to claim to Walther, no matter what else they may say in their defense, i.e. bringing it "up to date", etc.. In the next Part 2, we finish Fuerbringer's introductory paragraphs and learn of a warning against a false use of Scripture, especially John 6.  Then in the following paragraphs we hear about the following subjects:

sola Scriptura — Brief Statement of 1932 — divine certainty — infallible and inerrant — infallible doctrine? — modern theology — Scripture principle — clear passages of Scripture — Luther on Inspiration — verbal inspiration — Analogy of Faith — sedes doctrinae — Scripture interprets Scripture — crime against the Divine majesty — Scripture self-authenticating — fides divina — sola gratia — Conversion and Election of Grace — Formula of Concord, Art. 11 — Free Will or bondage of the will? — Calvinism? — willful resistance — synergism — Grace (Boerhaave) — Open Heaven — above a whore? — Norwegian Synod — Pieper's last conversations.

= = = = =  TABLE OF CONTENTS  = = = = = 

Part 1 – Intro; L.F.'s opening paragraphs

Part 2 – conclusion of opening paragraphs; John 6 about Holy Communion? (CTS-Ft. Wayne)

Part 3 – sola Scriptura; Scaer's confusion on John 6

    Briggs Heresy Trial series
Part 4 – simple faith; infallibility?; Warfield; Synergism in Inspiration; Presbyterians & Inspiration

Part 5 – 'Rule of faith' or Analogy of faith; Scripture clarity, majesty; deniers; certainty of faith

    Piepkorn Heresy – his teaching against Inerrancy (and Inspiration) – judgment
Part 6 – sola gratia: not “hidden synergism”; “the point that matters”

Part 7 – irresistible grace?; Formula of Concord: man is a stone, a block, clay

Part 8 – “For Agreement” on pure grace, grace alone; true ecumenism