Search This Blog

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query pencil in the hand. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query pencil in the hand. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Dr. F. Pieper als Theolog (Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian)

[2019-08-14: see my 2018 series on the translated complete essay of Fuerbringer]
I stated on my other website www.franzpieper.com (Wayback) the following:
Who was it that Concordia Publishing House chose to write the biography of Dr. Franz Pieper at his death in 1931? Professor Theodore Graebner, the one who now charges in 1938 (and 1936 privately) Pieper with writing a "meaningless" letter and bringing "injustice" to Preus and Torrison...
However after studying the articles in Concordia Theological Monthly after Pieper's death, I must say there is an article by Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer (Fürbringer), his successor as Concordia Seminary president, that does some justice to Dr. Pieper.  If only he had been stronger in resisting the poison of unionism being pounded into the Missouri Synod by his fellow professor Theodore Graebner.  Here is the English translation of Fuerbringer's German language article from CTM, volume 2, October, 1931, pages 721-723 [updated link]:
Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian
(by L. Fürbringer)
     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" (vol. 34, pg 97) in the April issue of "Lehre und Wehre" (Doctrine and Defense, ed.) 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 probably 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 magazines in his more than 50-year public activity from 1878 to 1931, and therefore could appear only after a long time and would also, if it should be fairly complete, extend over yearsHowever, 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 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 Compendium Theologiae Positiva procured, in fact, 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.  (page 722) 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 a display and recommendation of just this first issue of this work of Walther (vol. 24, p. 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, 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 even 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 probably say at this point that I have perused Pieper's dogmatics when each volume appeared after the other to make from beginning to end word-by-word with the pencil in the hand, in order to make notes carefully to myself with the greatest interest and benefit; and if there are found repetitions frequently, 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 has been said here has also been expressed by theologians outside of our own Synod.  (page 723)  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. Augustine's interpretation of John chapter 6 about the spiritual enjoyment of the sacred meal used the evil enemy, to drive me into such confusion, that I almost would have told the Lutheran church Valet (or be my servant? ed.). 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 right 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 in old, known ways yet ever new connections of the Church: sola scriptura and sola gratia.
I have omitted several pages at this point that quote from Pieper's various writings on these points because they are sufficiently covered in his volumes of Christian Dogmatics and in the Brief Statement of 1932.
As I read Fürbringer's article, I decided to search his other published writings.  But I could not find that he continued with the spiritual strength of Pieper and he wrote more of reminiscing of the old Missouri Synod.  Unfortunately this allowed the spirit of unionism to gain a foothold and brought the downfall of this once beautiful church body.  Dear God! ... how beautiful it was!
Lord have mercy on us and send teachers as Luther, Walther, and Pieper again!  Thank thee for giving us tools to unlock their many untranslated German writings so that we may feast more on thy doctrine as thou hast given us in thy Scriptures!  In Jesus precious name I pray.  Amen!

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

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.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

"Little historians" and the Brief Statement of 1932; Ludwig Fuerbringer

As I was just googling the term "Brief Statement of 1932", I ran across an essay [archived; see here, herehere for 1961 CTM essay] on it's historical context that was authored in 1961 by C.S. Meyer, the "church historian" for the new English LC-MS.  It was published in the periodical Concordia Theological Monthly (CTM, vol. 32). On page 406, Mr. Meyer said this:
In 1932 recognition was taken of the labors of the late F. Pieper, F. Bente, and George Mezger. Another generation had passed; another epoch in the history of the Missouri Synod had come to a close.  F. Pfotenhauer served one more term as President of the church body; in 1935 he became "Honorary President." But L. Fuerbringer remained active for almost another decade, a fact that protests against little historians making too pat periodizations of history.
Mr. Meyer, writing in 1961, would definitely call me a "little historian" for I have clearly periodized (actually separated) the history of the Missouri Synod.  But who is he referring to as "little historians" in his day?  Answer: All those who recognized the downfall of the old (German) Missouri Synod and ended fellowship with the new (English) LCMS... and C.S. Meyer.

All true church historians should bear this label "little historians" gladly.

Carl Meyer refers to Ludwig Fuerbringer, the successor to Franz Pieper as President of Concordia Seminary - St. Louis.  He implies that Ludwig should be counted with the old Missouri Synod, with the likes of Pieper, Bente, Mezger, and Pfotenhauer. But what about the theologian Ludwig Fuerbringer? You can find his bio info here [2025-07-01 link updated] at Concordia Historical Institute.  You can see a list of books he authored here. I recall devouring his book 80 Eventful Years: Reminiscences of Ludwig Ernest Fuerbringer to find a sign of life, a sign that he recognized the true strength of Missouri in its doctrine of justification.  I made a copy of the entire book so I could study it carefully.  A picture of Fuerbringer is included on a front page which follows:
Ludwig Ernst Fuerbringer
The man under whom the LCMS turned from "a living knowledge of the doctrine of  Justification". (Pieper II, 555)
The caption above that I have put under his picture is harsh, I admit, but it is what I wrote back in 1999.  He was considered a congenial person.  He co-authored the Concordia Cyclopedia with Theodore Engelder and Paul Kretzmann, a helpful reference book in many cases. He reminisced of the days and men of the old (German) Missouri Synod. C.F.W. Walther encouraged him as a youth to enter the seminary and not be a medical doctor (page 67-68, 80 Eventful Years). O, but it was a very heavy weight that was put on his shoulders as he was elected to follow Franz Pieper as his successor to the office of President of Concordia Seminary! I have stated elsewhere my wish that it should have been Theodore Engelder instead.

On my original web site www.franzpieper.com [link updated], I mentioned Fuerbringer's name and his book but I left it blank as to what I would say about him.  After I ran across his writing this year of the article Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian, I was favorably struck by it and decided to publish it because it far surpassed the more official biography of Pieper by Theodore Graebner [2019-07-28: link updated].  Prof. Fuerbringer admitted that he
perused Pieper's dogmatics when each volume appeared after the other to make from beginning to end word-by-word with the pencil in the hand in order to make notes carefully to myself with the greatest interest and benefit.
Elsewhere in the same article he said:
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, and that in order to understand the truth, one must stand in the truth
Ludwig Fuerbringer actually came close to doing justice to Franz Pieper.  This is Ludwig's strength... and his weakness.  I will call Ludwig Fuerbringer a "little historian", not in the sneering sense of C.S. Meyer, but in a positive sense for his historical theology is weak, but still useful.  But I will call Franz Pieper The 20th Century Luther!