Only a Lutheran, only Dogmatics: Bente praises Pieper's Dogmatics, vol. 2 (Part 1 of 3)

      This is a revised and updated version of an old blog post from 10 years ago in 2015. While reading this piece I remembered how glad I was to find such a wonderful judgment of Franz Pieper's Christian Dogmatics in the pages of Lehre und Wehre. In this case, it was a book review by Editor Prof. Friedrich Bente of Volume 2. I had translated Bente's review and inserted my extensive comments. In this updated version, I have added pictures, comments and more links.  — In the following presentation, Bente's text is in black font, my comments are indented in red font. From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 63 (1917), pp. 468-469 [EN]:

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

Christian Dogmatics. By Dr. Franz Pieper. Second volume. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo. 672 pages, bound in cloth with spine and cover titles. Price: $4.00.

This work, which thousands will welcome with pleasure, has already been sufficiently characterized in Lehre und Wehre. However, we do not want to deny ourselves a few remarks. 

“Thousands will welcome?” That was true over 100 years ago, but today? For those few who still value true Christian doctrine, this volume is available for viewing, free of charge by borrowing, on the Internet Archive. Still, this book is so important that a hardcopy is priceless.

It is true that not every Lutheran can write a dogmatic, but only a Lutheran can write a truly Christian dogmatic. Why? Because he alone stands at the center of Christianity, not only according to his heart faith, but also according to his knowledge. 

Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics is not an entirely Christian dogmatics, no matter how many volumes he wrote, no matter how many accolades it receives.   According to the recent book Strange Glory, page 136: “Karl Barth … the Swiss theologian had moved from Münster ... to assume Bonn’s post in Reformed Theology, which was being funded by American Presbyterians eager to promote Calvinism in the land of Luther.” Karl Barth was a Reformed theologian.  So why is Barth not suitable for instruction in Christian dogmatics?  Read on...

Anyone who does not take his position at the center does not see everything, nor does he see and judge what he sees correctly. In theology, this position is that one really sits in the Scriptures, sees everything through the Scriptures, and judges according to the Scriptures. 

However, not everyone who operates with the words of Scripture and knows how to surround himself with a scholarly exegetical atmosphere is really seated in Scripture, but only those who have taken their standpoint in the actual heart of Scripture. This heart of Christianity, however, is nothing other than the scriptural doctrine of God's grace in Christ Jesus, according to which only faith justifies, regenerates and saves. 

Today there are many a theologians who know how to “surround themselves with a scholarly exegetical atmosphere”, e.g. Exegetics Professor James Voelz of Concordia Seminary.  Many of today’s theologians gain notoriety by having higher degrees from Cambridge, Oxford, University of Chicago, etc.  Concordia Publishing House can’t get enough of these Bible commentators and the positive reviews for their books by these “scholarly exegetes”.  Their editors love this scholarly atmosphere, the “scholarly exegetical atmosphere”. 

But yet they are either weak in or have lost the Doctrine of Grace.  Walter Albrecht, in his Foreword to Volume 3, page v, of Pieper’s Dogmatics, highlighted Pieper’s statement from Volume 1 (pg 101), that “Only dogmatics is edifying”.  That is, it is for doctrine that the Bible was given to man.  As Pieper says on page 101: “Exegetical theology deals exclusively with the words of Holy Scripture…. [It] loses its theological character if the exegete does not adhere throughout to the maxims “Scriptura Scripturam interpretatur” [Scripture interprets Scripture] and “Scriptura sua luce radiat.” [Scripture shines its own light]  —  This is how I was led back to my Christian faith, as Pieper (and Walther) held my nose to the bare Scripture of 2 Cor. 5:19 and said “See?”  Can you read?... God IS already reconciled to you?...  now you know what grace is.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 2  - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

In the next Part 2…

- - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - -

Part 1: This introduction

Part 2:  All "threads of theology" tied "into a knot"

Part 3: The great stir in America

“Stodgy, old, German Lutheran theologians of the nineteenth century” and… Concordia Publishing House

     I ran across the above phrase in the "Introduction" to the 2004 CPH book Fire and Staff: Lutheran Theology in Practice. Author Pastor Klemet Preus († 2014) reported that The Rev. Fred Baue, Preus's original editor at Concordia Publishing House (CPH), spoke this phrase to him in a discussion on how to name his new book. One can read the full account on pages 13-14 in the "Look Inside" file.

      I was surprised that Pastor Preus, son of Robert Preus, seemed somewhat reluctant to contradict CPH editor "Fritz" Baue to his face. It is apparent why Preus, an orthodox pastor and teacher, initially "had an argument with [his] editor", why he was "unconvinced" and "agonized" about this for some time. He was uncomfortable about this characterization from the CPH Editor, and rightly so. Preus confirms this when he eventually "thought the description 'stodgy' might be a bit harsh. (p. 14).

      Preus revealed in print just who Concordia Publishing House editor "Fritz" was thinking of as 

"stodgy, old, German Lutheran theologians of the nineteenth century":

C. F. W. Walther 

and others like him.

One is reminded of a report in the 2017 Christian News newspaper that CPH had dropped its support of an early translation of Walther's book: Pastoral Theology. — May this blog be thought of as "old", "stodgy", "German Lutheran". That would put me in good company.

Luther's “feminine gender” study (on Genesis 3:15): Latin Bibles' error

     I stumbled across a phrase Luther used, "the feminine gender", while researching his writings on another matter, and it struck me as pertinent to today's narrative. He was addressing an early mistranslation of Genesis 3:15 that was at the root of the eventual worship of the Virgin Mary as Redemptrix or Mediatrix, and even today's empowerment of women. — Here are the quotes from the American Edition with links to the exact page:

AE 9, 25 ff.; StL 3, 1390]: 

“Such are those who nowadays expound almost the whole Bible, wherever they find a word in the feminine gender, concerning the Blessed Virgin.22 (22 For a sample of such exegesis and of Luther’s attacks upon it see Luther’s Works, 1, pp. 191—198.)”

The American Edition editor provided a helpful reference to Luther's Genesis commentary as the source of this "damnable" error of a mistranslation of Genesis 3:15, to say “And she will crush.”, instead of "it shall bruise thy head" or "the same (the seed of the woman) shall bruise thy head.” Below are excerpts from Luther's commentary on Genesis 3:15:

AE 1, p. 191; StL 1, 234: 

“How amazing, how damnable, that through the agency of foolish exegetes Satan has managed to apply this passage, which in fullest measure abounds in the comfort of the Son of God, to the Virgin Mary! For in all the Latin Bibles the pronoun appears in the feminine gender: “And she will crush.”

AE 1, p. 192; StL 1, 235:

“we want to remove the idolatry contained in the statement that by giving birth to Christ, Mary has destroyed all the power of Satan.”

AE 1, p. 193; StL 1, 236:

God “clearly declares that the male Seed of the woman would prostrate this enemy.”

AE 1, p. 193; StL 1, 236:

“…but from that very flesh I shall bring forth a Man who will crush and prostrate you and all your powers.”

AE 1, p. 193; StL 1, 236: 

“When Eve had given birth to her first-born son, she hoped that she already had that Crusher.40 (40 This reflects the interpretation of Gen. 4:1 which Luther had adopted in his translation of the Old Testament…)”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Luther identifies "all the Latin Bibles", Nicholas of Lyra, and the "negligence on the part of the rulers in the church" as culprits in this error that persists among Roman Catholics, and Romanizers, everywhere today.

Scharlemann denied inerrancy even after Walkout, supported Sasse’s error on Scripture (Part 2 of 2)

      This concludes from Part 1 in a 2-part series, the final word on a prominent LC–MS theologian from before and after the Walkout of 1974, Dr. Martin Scharlemann. — To add to the mystery of Scharlemann's conflicted theology, in 2018, the ELCA seminary student Donn Wilson (her or him?) reported in the Master of Theology Theses in footnote #42, p. 72 the following: 

There is only conjecture to explain Scharlemann’s reversal. It obviously saved his career at CSSL. The possibility of becoming president of CSSL remained. He was a “good soldier” who knew how to follow orders in a system of structured authority. Even his brother-in-law, Edward Schroeder [a zealous Walkout participant], has no clear explanation for Scharlemann’s behavior.

"Biblicistic"?

Prof. Richard Klann, a colleague of Scharlemann who also did not participate in the Walkout, "spent many hours together" with Scharlemann in the 1960s and wrote the following in a Concordia Journal article in Nov. 1982, p. 203: "Lutheran principles of interpretation are [not] biblicistic…". Klann's, and by extension Scharlemann's, use of the term "biblicistic" is probably how he would characterize the hermeneutical teaching of Walther and Pieper.

- - - - - - - - - - -

      According to CHI, there is "36 linear feet" of Scharlemann's papers in their repository. And it was reported in the Summer of 2011 that these papers, which had been closed to research since Scharlemann's death in 1982, were then open for research. And apparently there was research done since that time. And it was none other than Pres. Matthew Harrison who would present the answer to the mystery surrounding Scharlemann's "reversal", his theology of Holy Scripture.

“A thorough study of Scharlemann's papers”:

      Along with Scharlemann's omission of an inerrant Bible in his entry on "Hermeneutics" in the 1975 Cyclopedia, we now have proof-positive from Scharlemann himself regarding his actual state of mind after his 1962 "withdrawal" of his controversial essays and now after the 1974 Walkout. This was revealed in Matthew Harrison's "Historical Introduction" to last year's (2024) book Rediscovering the Issues, p. 6 (note the parenthetical remark):

Not long after the Synod's 1969 convention, a few St. Louis faculty members expressed concerns about what was being taught at the seminary. Among them was Martin Scharlemann, who wrote President Preus on April 9, 1970, suggesting an official inquiry. (It might be noted, however, that even after the Walkout, in [July] 1975, Scharlemann wrote Hermann Sasse expressing his support for Sasse's Letters to Lutheran Pastors on Holy Scripture, particularly where Sasse rejected the position that Scripture is inerrant in every respect. Although otherwise orthodox Lutherans like Sasse and Scharlemann could retain the dogmatic context of the faith without a strict doctrine of inerrancy, most cannot, and certainly not members of following generations.)

It should be noted that in dating the letter to Sasse in the year 1975, Scharlemann was at that time the "chairman of the department of exegetical theology (1974-1976)", according to CHI's Historical Footnotes of Spring 2012, p. 3. So the chief LC–MS exegetical teacher, who did not join in the Walkout, did not teach the inerrancy of Scripture – how could he, if he did not believe it? Now all those pastors and theologians who judged that Scharlemann had not really changed from his former erring position, were justified in their judgment. Their Synod had cautioned them but they remained firm in the faith based on Holy Scripture.

What about Pres. Harrison?

      One wonders that Harrison may only have included this parenthetical remark because someone at CHI, perhaps Director Harmelink, informed him of the late culpability of Scharlemann and so he could not ignore it. Harrison surely cringed at reporting about Scharlemann and Sasse, because he appears to justify these theologians by stating they "could retain the dogmatic context of the faith without a strict doctrine of inerrancy". By this statement he gives an opening for other theologians to also deny inerrancy yet claim they too are "orthodox Lutherans". — Franz Pieper, while admitting Harrison's point, gave a stronger warning than Harrison. In his Christian Dogmatics I, pp. 178-179, fn 237 he states: "That the denial of the Inspiration, if consistency prevails, leads to denial also of the satisfactio vicaria [vicarious satisfaction]". That is a denial of the Christian faith. [See also this blog post] As Harrison's revelation shows, Siegbert Becker was the best judge of Scharlemann's actual teaching! [See Part 1, and this blog post from 2017.] 

      I was surprised that Harrison would be the one to report Scharlemann's letter to Hermann Sasse. But Concordia Historical Institute, in their "Historical Footnotes" essay (Summer 2011 to Summer 2012) on Scharlemann chose to title their series "Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann: A Faithful Servant". Perhaps author Zittlow was not aware of what Harrison revealed 13 years later in 2024. But what does that say about those who accept equivocal answers to critical doctrinal questions? And what does it say about Pres. Harrison himself when he chooses to justify both Sasse and Scharlemann as "orthodox Lutherans" who "could retain the dogmatic context of the faith", while stating that most other theologians could not?

      One may also wonder why Dr. Robert Preus and other members of the faculty did not take notice of Scharlemann's lingering error.

The Confessional Lutheran and the State of the Church publications:

      For anyone interested in getting the full story of the Scharlemann case, read through the pages of The Confessional Lutheran periodical. As Matthew Harrison reported (page 4): 

Beginning with the November 1959 issue, the Scharlemann controversy dominated the pages of an independent publication called The Confessional Lutheran until well after the Synod’s 1962 convention.

Author Mark Braun makes extensive use of this periodical which is now available on the Internet Archive for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962. —  Another independent detailed source available on the Internet Archive is the State of the Church (Missouri Synod), Book of Documentation series of publications for the years 1961 and 1962. — Both of these publications provide the reader with the background and documentation on the Walkout participants and their sympathizers.  Scharlemann's demise was well documented in these.

Seminary President Karl Barth (emeritus; † 2020)

      According to Barth in 1999, as reported by Mark Braun, "Scharlemann had renounced these views later in his life". While one may charitably assume that that was true, even after 1975 where he privately admitted that he had not changed, there is no public record of his change of heart, certainly not in his many writings that I have read. Franz Pieper judged Delitzsch the same way that Barth judged Scharlemann, calling his denial of Inspiration a "felicitous inconsistency" (Christian Dogmatics I, p. 178). I would tend to "charitably assume" the same of Scharlemann after reviewing the book The Making of a Theologian: Selected Works of Martin H. Scharlemann.  — But could it be that even the LC-MS's Karl Barth was weak on discerning the remaining error in Scharlemann? CHI writer Todd Zittlow's final remark still stands:

“Will the real Martin Scharlemann please stand up.”

That rhetorical question was a strike for honesty by writer Zittlow as he admitted the obvious. — 

      The sad reality was that the same Concordia Seminary Board of Control that acted against the Walkout faculty looked favorably on Prof. Martin H. Scharlemann after he had been given a period of rest after the Walkout. Klann reported in the above mentioned Concordia Journal article on Scharlemann that "His former status as graduate professor of New Testament exegesis was returned to him." This was done because it was in part "necessary to oppose" a "biblicistic" "principle of interpretation". In other words, the LC–MS never fully returned to its former glory notwithstanding the influence of the two Preus brothers, Robert and J. A. O.. One could use Zittlow's remark to say the following:

“Will the real LC–MS please stand up.”

To borrow Harrison's phrase, isn't the LC–MS actually an "otherwise orthodox" church body? 

[2025-09-07: An excellent essay that documents the "neo-orthodoxy" of Prof. Scharlemann was authored by Pastor Reinhold Goetjen in 1961. The Wisconsin Synod repository of essays has a copy of it here. Scharlemann's neo-orthodoxy is addressed on pages 3-5.]

Scharlemann on inerrancy: new information (Part 1 of 2)

      In March of this year, I blogged about how an essay by the well-respected theologian Raymond Surburg unfortunately did not notice how the 1975 LC–MS Christian Cyclopedia, in the "Hermeneutics" entry rewritten by Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann (1910-1982), had omitted reference to an inerrant Bible as previous editions had done. Much controversy surrounded Scharlemann and his early essays against Holy Scripture. But it seems the LC–MS never fully returned to its former glory in its teaching on this subject. In fact, after the Walkout of 1974, whenever LC–MS historians refer to Scharlemann's 1962 "withdrawal" at the 1962 Synod convention, they speak of it as if that had settled the matter. 

    The Scharlemann case was documented by Wisconsin Synod historian Prof. Mark Braun in his 2003 NPH book A Tale Of Two Synods. On pages 309-310, he records the following (bolding is mine):

Scharlemann “withdrew” his essays at Missouri’s 1962 conven­tion, apologizing for the disruption he had caused throughout the synod during the previous three years. (#105) The convention’s delegates assured Scharlemann of their forgiveness and resolved to demonstrate their forgiveness by prayers, encouragement, and “the request that [Missouri] members refrain from attacks upon him on the basis of [his] essays.” (#106) A dozen years later [1974], Scharle­mann was among the five professors who remained when most faculty and students walked off Concordia’s campus in 1974. (#107)

• 105) Many in the Missouri and Wisconsin synods, however, doubted that the with­drawal of Scharlemann’s essay resolved the issues his studies raised and won­dered whether Scharlemann in fact ever changed his views. 
• 106) Missouri Proceedings, 1962, 106-7. “Doctrinal Matters,” LW [Lutheran Witness], 81 (July 10, 1962), 334-5.
• 107) At a presentation of the highlights of this dissertation at Wisconsin Lutheran Col­lege, Milwaukee, March 22, 1999, after the author [Mark Braun] made a brief reference to the Scharlemann papers, a member of the audience rose to defend Scharlemann, saying that Scharlemann had renounced these views later in his life, and that he—the speaker—while president of Concordia Seminary, had even ministered to Scharle­mann on his deathbed in 1981. The speaker was Karl Barth, former South Wiscon­sin District President and Concordia president. Siegbert Becker, however, who opposed Scharlemann’s views at the 1959 Chicago meeting and for whom the Scharlemann papers occasioned the most traumatic decision in his ministerial career, remained unconvinced that Scharlemann had undergone a change of heart. Becker used to remark, “To the end of his life, Scharlemann was a charlatan.”

This case was also reported in Concordia Historical Institute's Summer 2012 "Historical Footnotes", p. 6 (bolding is mine):

These papers were strongly critiqued and a large groundswell of opposition developed. By the 1962 convention in Cleveland moves were made to remove Dr. Scharlemann from the faculty of Concordia Seminary. In response, Scharlemann agreed to officially withdraw his essays and apologized to the Synod in convention for the controversy and discord he had caused. The delegates responded by overwhelmingly passing a resolution accepting his apology and assuring him of forgiveness.

One may note the Synod's acceptance of Scharlemann's "withdrawal" from his controversial essays, while Scharlemann himself did not retract his essays. It seems the Synod did not care, and actually warned against continuing to defend against Scharlemann! Everyone was practically forced to accept Scharlemann's equivocal "withdrawal".

      But even the CHI writer, Todd Zittlow, admitted the strange situation of Scharlemann's own teaching (page 7):

But questions remain. How does one make sense of Scharlemann’s apparent move from moderate progressive theologian to conservative defender? … Perhaps some of these questions can be answered by a thorough study of his personal papers. Perhaps a researcher will be able to speak with some clarity and insight when the statement is made, “Will the real Martin Scharlemann please stand up.”

Well, last year President Matthew Harrison reported on the result of what was evidently a more "thorough study of his [Scharlemann's] personal papers". We will report on the results of that in the concluding Part 2.

"You are the only person I know…"

      A little over 9 years ago, I received correspondence from a Lutheran pastor on a certain topic. It was then discovered that he was from the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) and so it is no surprise that he was not entirely in agreement with certain points of my blog. But then he surprised me by stating the following:

“You are the only person I know who studies extensively all of Old Missouri theological history…”.

This ELCA pastor had some knowledge of what was going on in the "Missouri Synod" of today, what the narrative in the Synod was. And he confirmed for me what I had largely concluded in my return to my Lutheran Christian faith, that Walther and Pieper, and the writings of the old Missouri Synod, were most certainly not held in high regard by many, if not most, in that Synod. 

      I wish that the judgment of this pastor was not actually true, and indeed I am aware of some Lutherans around the world who recognize the greatness of the fathers of the Missouri Synod in the Lutheran Church. But when I see LC–MS writers and theologians bypass these fathers, and go back to the likes of Luther, Chemnitz and the earliest Lutheran theologians, I know that they don't really know Luther. That is why I named my blog

“Back To Luther”,

because I found Luther first in the writings of C. F. W. Walther and Franz Pieper.

(We will hear a surprising testimony on this from an LC-MS author/pastor/theologian in an upcoming blog post.)

L11–IV. 2, 3. Proper distinction of Law from Gospel

      This concludes from Part L10 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses two more points on the relationship of the preaching of the law to that of justification through faith. It is a wonderful sight to see these two speak on this all important subject. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 374 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

IV. What is the relationship between the preaching of the law and the preaching of justification through faith?

      2. Justification itself may be taught from the gospel alone, and therefore the preaching of the law is to be entirely excluded from it.

What Luther says on the preaching of the law in relation to justification:

• “The law is not only unnecessary for man to be justified by it, but quite useless and impossible in all things. But those who hold the law in the opinion that they want to be justified by it, to them the law also becomes a poison and pestilence to righteousness.”
• “In sum, as high as heaven is above the earth, so far should the law be separated from justification; and nothing should be taught, said, or remembered in the article concerning justification, but only the word of grace.”

Walther concludes with a caution on the limits of the Law:

      3. The law must not be preached to the justified as such in order to make them pious and fruitful in good works, and it must therefore not be imposed on the new man, but only on the old man; just as the holy apostle Paul calls out to the Galatians, who had again placed themselves under the yoke of the law: "I want to learn this from you alone: Did you receive the Spirit through the works of the law, or through the preaching of faith?" (Gal 3:2)

What Luther says on the limits of the Law:

• “The Gospel, where it is right in the heart, should make such a person who does not wait so long for the law to come, but is so full of joy in Christ, has a desire and love for good, that he gladly helps and benefits everyone where he can, out of a free heart, before he even thinks of the law, dares to risk his body and life, not asking anything about what it suffers, and thus becomes full of good works that flow from himself.”
• “So Moses [the Lawgiver] is to do his work apart from Christ, that he may drive those who are not Christians or who are ever the old man. For he does not thereby make Christians pious or righteous; but he does so by showing them what their office is, that they may gladly do according to the Spirit”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      It is this last Section IV that sets Walther's theology above modern LC–MS theologians and pastors, ones who think they can judge Walther, like Prof. Henry Eggold (see Parts L09a, L10). It was Walther who brought Luther's counsel on the "Misuse and Proper Use of the Law" (see the sermons in Am. Ed. vol. 56, pp. 92 ff.) to America, in his book The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (or Law & Gospel). May this series presenting his instruction and counsel aid the reader as it has me. Amen!

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

      In the following English translation, all Luther quotes have been linked directly to their source in the St. Louis Edition, American Edition (where possible), and, in the case of Church Postils, to Lenker's edition. Of course all St. Louis and Lenker edition materials are available without restriction for immediate viewing. Many weeks, days, and hours have been spent looking up and providing these links so that readers, like me, may be able to study Luther's writings further. One can never learn too much on this subject, and one cannot have better teachers than C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther:

Web version here; download file here; German version here.

L10–IV. 1. Law precedes justification through faith; Eggold's 2nd criticism of Walther

[2025-08-18: added note at bottom in red.]

      This continues from Part L09a (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther gets to the heart of the matter that makes him, and Luther, stand out: how to properly use the Law in relation to the Gospel.  — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 370 ff.: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

IV. What is the relationship between the preaching of the law and the preaching of justification through faith?

      1. The preaching of justification through faith must be preceded by the preaching of repentance from the law, as it is written: "Thus it is written, and thus Christ must suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and cause repentance and remission of sins to be preached in his name among all nations, and be raised up in Jerusalem." Luke 24:47.

What Luther says on the preaching of the law in relation to justification:

• “They have invented a new method for them, that grace should be preached first, then the revelation of wrath, so that the word "law" may not be heard or spoken.… But they do not see how St. Paul teaches in a contrary way, first showing the wrath of God from heaven and making all the world sinners and guilty before God; then, when they have become sinners, he teaches them how to obtain grace and become righteous… But they turn the shoe around and teach us the law according to the gospel and wrath according to grace.”
• “Those who are stubborn, stiff-necked and secure should be frightened with examples of God's wrath, so that, as is said here, they may learn to fear God. But now our hearts are inclined not to like to be chastened. We all accept the promises with joy and do not resent them. But the preaching of the law frightens people and makes them, as it were, fierce and angry.”
• “But the Antinomians would have it that the doctrine of repentance should begin badly with grace; but I did not follow this process. … [I] comforted no one except those who had previously repented and suffered for their sins and had themselves been tormented by them, whom the law had frightened”

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

    In Prof. Henry Eggold's ThD dissertation "Walther, the Preacher", beyond his judgment that Walther exhibited Pietism in his preaching (Part L09a), he also disagreed with Walther's strong preaching of the Law. After he quotes Walther's statement that "Hypocrites even today still cling to every Christian congregation" (Licht des Lebens, p. 297), Eggold states:

"This is an extremely important assertion of Walther's because it reveals quite clearly the attitude Walther takes toward his own congregation. Only on the basis of the statement can one understand why he applies his sermons quite consistently to the unbelievers as well as to the believers in his audience. …. I feel that his statement is too broad. I would prefer to say that there are certainly hypocrites in every congregation where Law and Gospel are not preached properly and where church discipline is neglected. But I do not feel that there is warrant for categorically assum­ing that there are hypocrites in every congregation."

Now "Eggold, the Preacher" would surely consider that his sermons properly preached Law and Gospel, and that his church discipline was not neglected. But did it not occur to Prof. Eggold that he is in essence charging Walther with not properly preaching Law and Gospel and also with neglecting church discipline. Perhaps it did not occur to Prof. Eggold the lesson of the parable of the tares among the wheat (Matt. 13:24-30) Perhaps it did not occur to Prof. Eggold that even Jesus's own preaching did not convert all who listened to his preaching. All of Eggold's seeming praise of Walther's preaching elsewhere is tainted by his criticisms. Walther is Old Missouri, Eggold is New Missouri and was at one time the head of Concordia Theological Seminary. — In the concluding Part L11…

========

2025-08-18: It should be noted that Pastor Klemet Preus († 2014) also criticized Eggold's homiletical style as driving a "wedge between fact and empowerment". This was done in Preus's essay "The Sermon As Absolution" in the book Propter Christum: Christ at the center: essays in honor of Daniel Preus, 2013 Luther Academy, p. 291. Preus also included Walkout Prof. Richard Caemmerer in his charge.