Fundament 15: Means 6: “experience theologian”, bad psychologists, “insanity”; Julius Stahl

      This continues from Part 14 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the foundation of the Christian faith ("Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens"). — Pieper got my attention when he mentions the field of psychology since I had been a patient in the past under both a psychiatrist and an psychologist for past distresses in my life. I wanted to hear from Pieper a Christian response to the worldly methods used in these fields for counseling.  — We are also introduced to a German man, Julius Friedrich Stahl, who had once been a Jew but became a Lutheran and defended the doctrine of the Means of Grace.  More information on him will follow later.  But I am reminded of other Jews who became notable Christians, some Lutherans, like Felix Mendelssohn (Evangelical) and Friedrich Philippi (Lutheran).

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

Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Pieper's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] is mine.

Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens.

The Foundation of the Christian Faith.

[by President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary; continued from Part 14 - page 253]

Luther is the personified type of the proper “experience theologian”. He advises every Christian and every theologian that “one should think about the letters [of Scripture], how to hold one's fist to a tree or a wall, so that we do not glide or flutter too far, and go astray with one's own thoughts. That is lacking in our enthusiasts, that they think, when they drive into their high spiritual thoughts, they have met it, and do not see how they go the wrong way without the Word, letting vain false wisps seduce them”.

In the same sermon, Luther declares all to be bad psychologists who do not know the erratic and torn nature of the human heart corrupted by sin, if they gain the courage to even think about spiritual things without a word of Scripture. Luther cites as an example what was reported about Saint Bernard. 

“This I must speak of as an example, as one reads of St. Bernard, who had tried such and complained for a time to a good friend that he would be angry to pray aright, and could not pray one ‘Our Father’ without strange hazards. The friend took this very much meaning that that would take no art or work at all. St. Bernard bet with him that he should try, and that he would wager a good stallion, only that he should tell him [immediately confess honestly if other thoughts occurred to him while praying]. He figured to do it without any effort and began to pray: 'Our Father' etc.; but before he got beyond the first petition, it occurred to him that if he gained the horse, whether he also had saddle and bridle for it. In short, he comes so far with thoughts that he soon had to let go and give St. Bernard the win. In short, if you can speak the Lord's Prayer without some other thoughts, I will think of you as a master; I cannot; yes, I will be glad if I think of thoughts that they will fall away again as they have come. I say this because one does not chatter over such texts like the raw spirits, but learns why we need such an outward Word and manner, namely that one holds the heart together with it, that it is not scattered.”

“So pitifully torn is the thing about man's heart; it goes, weaves, and wobbles, that no wind nor water is so movable.” In view of this fact, Luther calls it an “insanity” if we ourselves abandon [page 254] the outer Word of Scripture as the only foundation of the Christian faith. (St. L.VIII, 787 ff. [not in old series Am. Ed.]) Luther comments on John 17:8, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me” etc. the following: 

“Behold how Christ speaks clearly of the outward verbal Word, by the bodily voice, spoken by Christ, and put into the ears, that no one should heed it as little or unnecessary; how many now mad spirits deceive themselves, and think that God must travel with them in a special way, by the secret revelation of the Spirit, etc. [to this belong also the modern theologians who speak of an experience of God and Christ without the means of grace] and thus lead themselves from God and Christ to the devil.” 

With regard to the opposite proper method, according to which only “Christ's Word” is allowed to be the foundation of faith, Luther adds: 

“Now I know that I have a gracious, kind Father in heaven, who through inexpressible, cordial love and goodness has sent and given me his dear Son, Christ, with all that He has acquired and directed, that I may fear neither sin nor death nor devil. Only, that one should abide by the word, and reject all other thoughts, and hear not other things of God, nor know without what Christ speaketh. For as I have always said, this is the single way to deal with God, that one should not tarnish, and the right step or bridge, on which one should go to heaven, that one should remain here and cling to this flesh and blood [to Christ as Deus incarnatus], yes, to the Words and letters that go from his mouth, whereby He leads us up to the Father in the finest way, that we may find and feel no wrath nor terrible image, but pure comfort, joy, and peace.” 

Let us repeat once again: Luther, with his clinging to the outer Word and the means of grace as the foundation of the faith, is the proper, normal “experience theologian”  over against all old and modern enthusiasm. May all also listen to the Reformer of the Church sent by God on this matter!

Rudolf Kögel vs. Friedrich Julius Stahl

From the different positions on the means of grace we can see the fundamental difference between Luther's Reformation and the Reformation which Zwingli and Calvin set in motion and continued alongside and against Luther. Rudolf Kögel judged harshly in his judgment against the lawyer Dr. [Friedrich Julius] Stahl, 83) because Stahl claimed in his paper “The Lutheran Church and the Union” that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church, and also justified this irreconcilable contradiction with the fact “that the Lutheran Church believes in the bestowal of grace by means and tools and draws comfort from it, 

-------------- 

83) RE.2 XIV, 579-590. About [Friedrich Julius] Stahl see also L. u. W. 6, 141 ff. [“The Lutheran Church and the Union”; on Stahl see German Wikipedia; Jewish Encyclopedia]

[page 255] 

the Reformed Church denies it.” [see LuW p. 144]  On other points, Stahl did not see clearly concerning “church and state” and “church and union”. [see LuW essay; this holds for Stahl’s follower Peter Drucker] But in this point the “theological dilettante”, as Stahl was well known to be, is right against the “theologian” Kögel that the opposite position on the means of grace implies a difference which makes a doctrinal union or confessional union between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church impossible. 

"Holy Spirit needs no 'vehicle'"

Let us once again look back at the contrast between Zwingli and Calvin, on the one hand, and Luther, on the other, in their position in relation to the means of grace that opposed us. According to Zwingli and Calvin, the Holy Spirit has no necessary “vehicle”, that is, no means of grace. According to Luther, the Holy Spirit comes only through the means of grace. Accordingly, we found in Zwingli and Calvin the explicit admonition not to want to judge from God's gracious attitude toward us men from the external Word or even from the sacraments, from baptism and the Lord's Supper, on the grounds that these external things do not bring grace and spirit (advehunt). 

With Luther, on the other hand, we found the opposite instruction, namely the constant admonition to flee to the objective means of grace, on the grounds that the Holy Spirit brings God's grace only through these external means ordered by God and works and maintains faith in grace. Stahl rightly reminds us that not both can be true: the gift of grace without means and the gift of grace only by means: “It can only be either that is truth and that is error or vice versa”.

The Scriptures, as we saw, decide very clearly that the truth is found on Luther's side, while Zwingli and Calvin represent the error. And this Zwinglian-Calvinist error is not located on the periphery, but is of central and far-reaching [radical? Franzmann’s “radical Gospel”? Franzmann resorts to terminology of “enthusiasm”] importance. It means nothing less than an actual reversal of the house rules in God's kingdom of grace here on earth. God wants to offer and appropriate his grace to the sinner through the external means ordered by Him. Zwingli and Calvin together with their appendages to our time reject this method as the majesty of God, are not decent and are harmful to the sinner. This principled rebellion against the divine house rules includes the apostasy from the Christian doctrine of grace, the apostasy from the divine justification by faith without works, and the return to the Papist doctrine of works. 

Luther rightly says: 84) “The enthusiasts do not take away the confidence of works, but strengthen the works even more and leave the confidence in them.” Why is Luther's judgment correct? We must not let the real situation be obscured by the fact that the enthusiasts often and much use the word “grace”. 

--------------- 

84) St. L. XI,1415. [§ 28; not in old series Am. Ed.]

= = = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 16  = = = = = = = = = =

      Pieper's praise of the German statesman Julius Stahl reveals a notable man with far-reaching effects even for today.  How refreshing to note that a converted Jew became a defender of the Lutheran "Means of Grace".  But Pieper also cautions that Stahl "did not see clearly concerning 'church and state' and 'church and union'."  The Swedish theologian Bengt Hägglund, in his History of Theology, p. 364 only notes Stahl's "legal basis" for a "new concept of the church", and sadly does not emphasize Stahl's praiseworthy defense of the Lutheran doctrine of the "Means of Grace"… too bad. More will be said of Julius Stahl in the future Part 17. —  In the next Part 16…

Churchman 5: Conventions– "so powerful", ”deep, lasting impression” on pastors, lay people

      This concludes from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting Ludwig Fuerbringer's 1936 essay "Walther as Churchman". — Fuerbringer rightly emphasizes Walther's prominence at the many Synod conventions that he attended.  And the focus in those days was the doctrinal essay, the "Lehrverhandlungen".  I have said it before and I'll say it again: whenever Walther was in attendance at any convention, the essay that was delivered has his authority, even if he was not the official presenter.  This was documented for the 1872 Synodical Conference essay. I suspect that CHI Director August Suelflow understood this, but he only had translated and published the essays that Walther explicitly delivered and would only call those essays Walther's "Essays For The Church". Fuerbringer, in another article, also emphasized the prominence of Franz Pieper in his convention essays… just like Walther.
      One of the points made in this segment is the leadership of Walther in the Missouri Synod.  More will be said about this below.  But now I present my translation of the final installment of this essay.

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

Original German essay in CTM, vol. 7 (October, 1936), p. 721-730, full text here. Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Fuerbringer's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] are mine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - 

Walther as Churchman.

[by Ludwig Fuerbringer; conclusion from Part 4]

And finally, in describing Walther as a churchman, one must not overlook his quite outstanding activity and effectiveness at synod conventions. Walther was great as a theologian, great as a preacher, but especially great also as a leader and advisor at such conventions. 

"always preferred to hear
Walther"

I am referring to a word from our former Synod President H. C. Schwan, which others may have heard, and this has been indelibly imprinted on me. Schwan once said in a circle of pastors that he had always preferred to hear Walther when he had intervened freely, without notes and written records, without quotations from Luther and the other teachers, directly in the course of the proceedings and had clarified and decided some doctrinal point or a church question by his presentation. There he was always so convincing, so powerful, that nobody could say anything against it anymore. And just as Schwan said from many years of experience and observation, Walther stands before me in my own, admittedly very poor perceptions. As a young man I saw him several times at such meetings and heard him, in 1881 at the delegate synod in Fort Wayne and at the following pastoral conference, the so-called “Election of Grace Synod” [* see new CPH Walther’s Works book Predestination p. 151 ff.], then 1882 in St. Louis and 1883 in Altenburg, when Walther was the speaker on the topic extending over thirteen years: “That Only Through the Doctrine of the Lutheran Church All Honor is Given to God, an Irrefutable Proof that its Doctrine is the Only True One”. Walther concluded this topic at that time according to the “tenth, in its doctrine of the invocation and worship of God” and the “twelfth, by the doctrine of obedience to men in matters of faith and conscience”. 14)

On two other occasions I have seen Walther heavily involved in the proceedings led by two other theologians, in 1884, when Dr. F. Pieper spoke about the Lutheran Scripture Principle at the St. Louis Delegate Synod, and in 1886, when Dr. A.L. Gräbner spoke about the divinity of Scripture at the Detroit Synodal Conference. No one who attended such meetings could escape the power and force of Walther's remarks, which he took from the Holy Scriptures, the norma normans,  <page 730> and proved with the testimonies of the Confessions, the norma normata. He had his famous quotation notes with him — Walther used to copy important passages from Luther, from the symbols and from the dogmatists of the Lutheran Church and to store them nicely arranged in a larger cupboard with drawers (pigeon-holes) to have them easily at hand. But even though he had his quotes in his hand and read them from time to time, he spoke freely and made a deep, lasting impression on pastors and lay people.  And so it would be at his last public appearance as a churchman at the Synod of the Western District in October 1886 in St. Louis. There he brought the above-mentioned theme to a conclusion with the statement, “That even the ruler of the house has neither right nor power to rule over the faith and conscience of his subordinates”. And then he concluded with these words, which also formed the conclusion of this article, with a barely audible voice suffocated with tears:

with a barely audible voice
suffocated with tears

“Thus we are at the end of theses which have been discussed for thirteen years, in which it has been proved that our Lutheran Church in all these doctrines alone gives all glory to God and never attaches the glory due to the great God to the creature. What God deserves, she gives Him completely. God help us that we may not only rejoice to belong to such a church, but that we ourselves may also give Him all glory in our faith, confession, life, suffering and death! Our motto for life must be: soli deo gloria (Glory to God Alone)! This is what the angels sang immediately after the Saviour was born. That was the first and is also the main thing. God got his honor back through Jesus. We have borne nothing but shame, but we have received eternal happiness by giving God his glory again. To all who believe that with their hearts! they will then see all the holy angels and continue the song of honor, praise and glory to God from eternity to eternity. God help us, dear brothers, that we may one day also be among this multitude and then truly give all our glory to the dear God with all our heart! For here we cannot do it; our shameful flesh clings to us. But there, when God has taken the old flesh from us, our doctrine will not only be theory, but we will also practice it. O Lord Jesus, help us all! Amen.” 15) L. Fuerbringer.

———————

14) 24th Synod Report of the Western District, p. 21 [1882]; 25th Synod Report of the Western District, p. 16 [1883].

15) 27th Synodal Report of the Western District, p. 9-58 [1886].

———————

= = = = = = = = =  end of essay  = = = = = = = = =  [Full English text;  full German text]

      We have testimony above from Pres. H. C. Schwan how Walther "intervened freely… directly in the course of the proceedings" of conventions.  As Fuerbringer reported Schwan's comments, he said that he equated Walther's spiritual comments to be as good as Luther's! Whenever and wherever Walther was present at conventions, the doctrinal essay and discussion commanded the main attraction.  This is further evidence that even at those conventions where he was not the official presenter of the essay, yet just his presence ensured that the pure Bible doctrine prevailed. It is my contention that all conventions where Walther was in attendance bear the stamp of his teaching.
      The above narrative described in two places Walther's commanding presence at conventions – "so convincing, so powerful" and "a deep, lasting impression".  This was indeed high praise for Walther as a theologian.  But does it mean that Walther was the only reason for the "success" of the Missouri Synod?  Some theologians, even Missouri Synod professors of Walther's time, said… yes.  And two Missouri Synod professors who said "yes" then left the Lutheran faith and became Roman Catholic.  A series of blogs is planned to present the history of these.  But for now, it was not Walther who built the Missouri Synod, it was God – it was the God of the Bible, through the Holy Scriptures to which Walther pointed… just as with Luther.  Amen.

Fundament 14: Means 5: Luther's counsel cont'd;

      This continues from Part 13 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the foundation of the Christian faith ("Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens"). —  In this segment, we hear especially more defense of this doctrine of the Means of Grace from the Lutheran Martin Luther.  Is the Pope Catholic?  Was Luther Lutheran?  Silly questions…

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

Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Pieper's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] is mine.

Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens.

The Foundation of the Christian Faith.

[by President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary; continued from Part 13 - page 251]

Luther also reminds us that it was ever and always God's way to communicate with people by external means and signs, thus making them partakers of His grace and certain of it. Thus, in the time of the Old Testament, the people of Israel saw the light of God's grace in the temple of Jerusalem. “Therefore the holy prophets have written much about the tabernacle, the dwelling place and the tabernacle where God wanted to be present” In the New Testament, God's grace shines on us wherever we have the Word of the Gospel and the sacraments, no matter in which country and in which place we are. 

In order to obtain complete satisfaction from all our sins, we do not need to wander to Rome or to other papist “places of grace”, nor to move to Palestine and Jerusalem, but our place of grace in the New Testament is wherever God gives His Gospel and His sacraments. There we shall keep ourselves, and there we shall be certain in the faith of the grace of God, and shall satisfy our conscience. On the words Exodus 15:17: “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in” remarks Luther: (St. L. III,924 f. [not in Am. Ed.?]) 

“Likewise he has also built for us Christians a temple where He will dwell, namely the oral Word, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which are bodily things. But our false prophets, divisive spirits, and enthusiasts despise it and throw it away as if it were no good, saying, ‘Yes, I will sit and wait for a flying spirit and revelation to come from heaven.’ But beware of it! We also know that water, bread and wine do not save us; but how do you like that, that in the Lord's Supper bread and wine [page 252] or pure water in baptism are not bad, but God saith that He will be in baptism, that it shall cleanse us from sin, and wash us? And in the Lord's Supper under bread and wine is given the body and blood of the Lord of Christ. Will you then despise God and His sign here and look upon the water in baptism and keep it equal to the water that flows in the Elbe, or that you may cook with? Or do you want the Word of the Gospel equal to the words or speeches as peasants speak in a Kretschmar or tavern? For God said, When the Word is preached by Christ, then I am in your mouth, and I go with the Word through your ears into your heart. Wherefore we have a certain sign, and know that when the Gospel is preached, God is present, and He will be found there; there I have a bodily sign, and I may know and find God. So He is also at baptism and the Supper; for he hath joined himself to be there. But if I go to St. Jacob's or to the Grimmetal, go into a monastery and look for God elsewhere, I will miss Him. And if now the divisive spirits preached: Just as monastic life, invocation of the saints, the mass and pilgrimages are nothing, so Baptism and the Lord's Supper are nothing either: that will yet not work for a long time. For there is a great difference when God ordains and installs something, or when man creates something. Yes, you shall believe God's ordinances and foundations, worship them and hold them in great honour. So he also ordered Moses: Bring them into the land, that is, arrange, and make a certain place, that whosoever cannot worship thee there personally may return his body here, and turn his face to it, and pray. So I have God also in a certain place, here in the Word and sacraments, that though one be in Rome, or wherever else he may be, if he turn his face only to the Word and sacraments, and worship them, there he shall find our Lord God; and if he would also be found in a straw, there he should be sought and honored.”

Luther speaks particularly powerfully of the necessity of the means of grace as the foundation of faith in a sermon on John 17:1, (St. L. VIII, 749. [not in old series Am. Ed.]) in which he cites himself as an example. It is, as has been repeatedly mentioned, part of the nature of modern “experience theology”, denying the inspiration of Scripture, to make the “personal Christ” the foundation of faith. In contrast, Luther explains from his experience that salvation certainty and truth certainty disappeared from him as often as he thought about truth and salvation without the outer Word of Scripture. In this case "there was no [page 253] Christ at home”. He says in the sermon mentioned: 

“I do not know how strong others are in the Spirit; but I cannot become so holy if I were learned and full of the Spirit as some would appear to be. It still happens to me at all times when I am without the Word, when I do not think of it or deal with it, there is no Christ at home, yes, there is no desire or spirit; but as soon as I take a psalm or passage of the Scriptures before me, it shines and burns in my heart that I may gain courage and meaning for others.” 

= = = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 15  = = = = = = = = = =

      Luther admits that he had no "Spirit", as the "so holy" enthusiasts claimed, without utilizing God's Means of Grace. — The next installment will introduce a surprising defender of the Means of Grace in Germany, from more modern times… a converted Jew! That comes in the next Part 15…