Full Text for Foreward (Text)
1 ed of God or cause divisions in the Church." ,,,
Professo Guenther then continues, "It is inexplicable to us
how Pastor , . ...:oehler can argue as he does; we do not know what
to say. Let the reader consider the situation. His assertion that
the Missouri Synod looks upon the denial that the Pope is the
Antichrist as divisive of church-fellowship and, at that, as abso-
lutely, under all circumstances divisive, he tries to prove by two
events concerning which he, in addition, is misinformed and in
which the issue was not at all refusal of chUl'ch-fellowship on
account of denial of the doctrine that the Pope is the Antichrist.
The other assertion, however, that in the Missouri Synod there
are people, and not a few at that, who will not go so far, he proves
with a statement in an official publication of the Missouri Synod.
Should a person not expect that he woule' ------- ~hat he cb--:-s
a body as such with by reference to declarations in its publications,
reports, and journals? For whatever appears in the latter must
be considered official unless the body rejects it, . .. But ---•. ~';
shall we say if the position which he quotes as an exception voiced
in L~hre und Wehre is not merely the opinion of many individuals
but of the whole Missouri Synod? And that precisely is the case.
The exaL.~"_~ adduced -.7 ~ astor Koehler, by means of which he
ende8.vors to prove wh,.+ ;~ +]...~ dominant :::-~-'+'-.- '.n the Mi;~c:.:r:
Synod, by no means ... contradict the proposition of Brunn quoted
from Lehre und Wehre, according to which a difference of opinion
in this question cannot be regarded as a heresy, does not absolutely
exclude from the position of a teacher in the Church, nor hinder
the true spiritual communion, provided a person does not thereby
knowingly reject the Word of God or cause divisions in the Church.
Pastor Koehler evidently has overlooked the words in the quota-
tion 'not absolutely' and the appended limitation 'pr'ovided thereby,'
etc. This simple presentation will without a doubt convince Pastor
Koehler and every impartial reader that there is no overemphasis
concerning the doctrine of the i\.ntichrist on the pel1t of the
Missouri Synod."
Next Professor Guenther examines the charge that with respect
to tl 19 concen ~ ~unday our church~body is gui: _
such an overemphasis. Pastor Koehler had stated that, on the
whole, he approves of Missouri's position. His criticism is that
lVIissouri is too polemical in its presentation of this doctrine,
opposing the Puritanical conception of Sabbath observance without
stre~ COl'Tect k' .. Sundayo D ~r G'uent~
reply SUbIl'1itS passages from Missouri Synod literature showing
4 Foreword
that what Pastor Koehler thinks is neglected is given much
emphasis. Concerning Johann Gerhard, to whom Pastor Koehler
had referred, Professor Guenther writes, "Since later theologians,
among them the esteemed Gerhard, in this question do not fully
agree with the Augsburg Confession, we cannot fully join them
in the manner in which they treat the positive side of this subject."
After having shown that Pastor Koehler is wrong when he holds
that we have to acknowledge a natural foundation for the obser-
vance "of this holy day," Professor Guenther continues, "Very
strange we find Pastor Koehler's conclusion of this section, 'Well,
in the question of Sunday, I base my position on Luther as well
as Missouri does - hence on account of such researches we cannot
grant the Missourians the right of saying Damnamus!' That
Pastor Koehler in the teaching concerning Sunday places himself
on the position of Luther apr1 teaches as Luther does is a cause
for rejoicing, but we have to add that Luther himself would
protest against the attempt of Pastor Koehler to make him his
authority for the hypothesis that the keeping of a weekly holiday
rests on natural observations. With respect to 'researches' we
shall refrain from uttering 'Damnamus' if only Pastor Koehler
through them does not wish to limit the evangelical freedom from
the Old Testament Sabbath law. We now put the question, What
of the overemphasis of Missouri on doctrinal differences 'juth
respect to the question of Sunday observance?" -Reading 1e
remarks of the two debaters on this matter, one finds that no proof
is brought that Missouri considered the position held, for instance,
by Gerhard that according to God's will one day out of se m
has to be set aside as a day of rest and worship as an error wl--;-::h
is absolutely divisive of church-fellowship nor that it became one-
sided in its rejection of Puritanical views on the keeping of Sunday.
From the discussion of the question of usury, in which
quotations from Luther play an important role, it is sufficient
that I quote the last paragraph of Professor Guenther, "The
criticism which Pastor Koehler voices against Missouri, claiming
that it requests a law [that is, of the State] and goes beyond Luther
has no foundation in fact. And when he himself admits, 'These
differences in the teaching on the taking of intc es aI" ac >rc'.:lg
to the own statements of Walther and Brunn not divisive of church-
fellowship,' etc. - one really cannot see why .Missouri should here
be accused of overemphasizing doctrinal differences, at what point
t~1C-e lig1.'; )-- ,"ch ,Il overem-.h.sis, and why such a charge
is made at all."
Finally, Professor Guenther looks at the charge that Missouri
overemphasizes doctrinal differences -wi~: .. L..lPL_t __ f ! (IC~ of
the holy ministry. Professor Guenther writes, "The fourth point
Foreword 5
to which Pastor Koehler has devoted attention reads, 'All these
doctrinal differences (Antichrist, question of Sunday observance,
usury) are just now put into the background by the doctrine of
the transfer of the ministerial office (Uebertragungslehre).' In the
first place, Pastor Koehler introduces a declaration made at the
colloquy with Buffalo. Next he makes the admission 'that this
congregational principle of the Missourians is widely different from
the modern tendency which is sponsored especially by the Pro-
testantenverein,' but he adds, 'Nevertheless, this so-called transfer
teaching has offended many people and has caused the Immanuel
Free Church and the Missouri Synod to cease having altar-fellow-
ship and fraternal relations.'" Professor Guenther very correctly
continues, "Vole inquire, Does this prove that the transfer teaching
is false? May the fact that a doctrine causes offense and leads to
the separation of churches be made a criterion of its Scriptural-
ness? In that case the whole teaching concerning Christ must be
thrown overboard." Then there follows a lengthy discussion in
which it is brought out that this so-called transfer teaching is
that of the confessional writings and of the dogmaticians of our
Church and that it agrees with the Holy Scriptures. As far as
the bearing of differences concerning this doctrine on church-
fellowship is concerned, this paragraph of Professor Guenther is
pertinent, "Continuing, Pastor Koehler says of Diedrich [leader
of the Immanuel Synod] and his followers, 'They criticize Missouri';
and of Missour i he says, 'It pronounces the sentence of excom.lTIuni-
cation on Diedrich and his adherents.' The former statement is
not entirely true, and the second is altogether untrue. Pastor
Diedrich and his followers not only criticize Missouri, but they
express the most bitter, hateful, and unjust judgments against us.
On the other hand, Missouri has never pronounced a sentence
of excommunication on them. It is not proper to utter such an
untruth."
The final paragraph of Professor Guenther reads, "Pastor
Koehler laments, 'Konsistorialrat Kuehn with the Eisenach Con-
ference and Lentz in Amsterdam, besides von Nolcken in Livland
and Max Frommel in Baden, have urged that peace be made and
have in one w ay or the other offered their mediation, but in vain.'
We put the question, Can Pastor Koehler prove that the basis of
the peace proposal mentioned was the true teaching of the
symbolical books, especially of the Smalcald Articles, and that
Missouri refused to entertain them merely because the word
'transfer' (Uebertragung) was not found in them, and that it
stubbornly insisted on its acceptance? We need no mediation and
proposals of peace. What binds us is unhesitating, sincere accep-
tance of our Confessions; hence the last sentence of Pastor Koehler
LIBRARY
CONCOR.OIA SEMINARY
SP"INa.FII!LC .. II. ....
6 Foreword
likewise is not to the point: 'The doctrine of the ministerial office
is the matter which hinders church-fellowship between the various
free churches.' Now what remains of the 'overemphasis of doc-
trinal differences'?"
Only few comments are required. That the article of Professor
Guenther from which the above paragraphs are taken had the
full approval of his colleagues, Professors Walther, Lange, Schaller,
and Pieper, is beyond all doubt.
The significance of what Professor Guenther writes is apparent.
It is evident, in the first place, that he is not willing to surrender
one iota of what God in the Holy Scriptures has revealed to us.
Whether it is Johann Gerhard or some mor e recent Lutheran
theologian who has diverged from the pure doctrine of God's
Word in a certain pOInt, the error is not, on account of the
eminence of the men advocating it, treated with indifference.
Nor is the aura popularis, the popularity of an idea, permitted to
be the arbiter for him when the question arises whether a certain
teaching is right or wrong. Professor Guenther's words breathe the
spir it which all the world has come to regard as characteristic
of Missouri, an uncompromising insistence on loyalty to Scripture
teaching. Professor Guenther as well as the other fathers were
of the conviction that indifference toward anything the Word of
God says is a crimen laesae maiestatis divinae. On that score
they held there could be no surrender, no weakening.
But the article of Professor Guenther brings out another
important fact. It shows that our fathers were not of the opinion
that every doctrinal aberration has to be regarded as by itself
divisive of church-fellowship. For example, while they believed
that it is Scripture teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist, they
did not hold that a denial of this teaching necessarily makes
all fraternal relationships impossible. They believed that the
doctrine which identifies the Pope as the Antichrist is a non-
fundamental doctrine, that is, a doctrine not belonging to that
group of teachings which form the foundation of our faith. It was
clear to them, of course, that the rejection even of a non-funda-
mental doctrine might become absolutely divisive. If such rejection
betokened unwillingness to bow to God's authority, they held that
it necessarily, if persisted in, had to lead to a separation and raise
a barrier between church-bodies.
That the position briefly sketched here in its two aspects,
that of uncompromising loyalty to the Scriptures and of willing-
ness to bear with a brother or a church-body differing with us in
non-fundamental teachings, was really the position of our fathers
can be seen not only from the article of Professor Guenther sub-
mitted here in its salient paragraphs, but, among other declarations,
Foreword 7
from the Foreword of Lehre und Wehre of 1876, likewise written
by Professor Guenther, and published in part in translation in
this journal in the April, 1941, issue and from the splendid essay
of Dr. Walther on the topic, The False Arguments for t he Modern
Theory of Open Questions, which was published in Lehre und
Wehre, 1868, and was translated for this journal in 1939 in the
issues from April to November inclusive. Perhaps the clearest and
most definite utterance of Dr. Walther on this subject was penned
by him in 1871 when he, in an article published in Der Lutheraner
(Lutheraner, Vol. 27, p.131), wrote thus, "Let, then, everybody who
wishes to know it take note that we are able to distinguish between
articles of faith and such doctrines as do not belong to this
category. It is true that w e do not permit any person to change
a Scripture doctrine, whether it appear significant or not, into
an open question. But while we deem it necessary to contend to
the utmost for every article of faith, everyone of which belongs to
the basis of our faith and hope, and while we cannot but condemn
the opposing error and withdraw the hand of fellowship from
those who stubbornly entertain this error, we by no means con-
sider it necessary under all circumstances to wage the same sor t
of warfare for Scripture doctrines which are not articles of faith;
and much less do we consider it imperative to pass the sentence
of condemnation on the opposing error, though we reject it, and
to sever fraternal relations with those who err in this point only.
If in a doctrinal contr oversy the dispute pertains to doctrines
which do not belong to the articles of faith, then for us everything
depends on the question whether the opponents manifestly contra-
dict because they are unwilling to bow to the Word of God, hence
whether they, though ostensibly not attacking the fundamental
teachings of the Word of God, nevertheless subvert the very
foundation on which these teachings rest, the Word of God itself."
These words are so lucid that interpretation is superfluous.
It must, of course, be granted that the mere fact that our
pious and honored fathers held a certain position is no proof
that this position is Scriptural. They were fallible human beings,
just as our whole church-body is fallible and can err. But their
adherence to a given principle certainly should induce us to
bestow on such principle earnest and prayerful study. Knowing
their devotion to the truth, we quite properly are predisposed in
favor of accepting what they stood for. However, when all that
can be said on this head has been stated, we all have to agree
that it is not the father s, but we who have to decide what we must
regard as Scripture doctrine; that not they, but we, with our con-
temporaneous fellow-believers, constitute the Church of 1942; and
that we ourselves have to examine all doctrines in the light of
8 Verbal Inspiration -- a Stumbling-Block to Jews, Etc.
the Holy Scriptures and see whether they are given by God or made
by men. It i.s incumbent on us to examine whether in our position
tot:lay we become guilty of giving an eXf ... 6el_~ed :mj,._rtWlce to
chctrinal differences. These lines are written in the convictio, that
it we adhere to the two principles set forth above, that of un-
swerving loyalty to everything the Scriptures say and teach, and
"that of willingness to bear with those who err in non-fundamental
doctrines, as long as their error must not be regarded as due to
disloyalty to the Scriptures, we cannot justly be accused of over-
emphasizing doctrinal differences. It would be a calamity if in
a day of confusion and apostasy, when a deluge of heretical teaching
and unbelief rushes upon the Church, our Synod should cease to
manifest the firm, manly, courageous attitude of Luther, Chemnitz,
and our own synodical fathers in behalf of the truth and adopt a
compromising stand in matters of doctrine and church pra·~tice
It would, how~ver, be a calamity, too, in these days when Chris-
tians need mutual strengthening, if in our zeal to defend the
truth we should violate the principles of love, patience, and for-
bearance which the Scriptures plainly inculcate, and give to certain
doctrinal differences an importance, which they, taken by them-
selves, do not possess, That there are numerous questions whkh
suggest themselves as this topic is studied and that an examination
of the Scriptural consideration.s underlying be ~.an;.. of _le .:athers
is urgently required, no one 'ATill deny. My hope is that in the
coming months conferences and individuals will give earnest and
prayerful attention to this subject in its various ramifications.
May the great Head of the Church mercifully grant all of us His
Holy Spirit as we ponder the work and the responsibility which
at the opening of the new year rest upon our shoulders.
W.ARNDT
'el . al :n! ,ir, ion - a ~ tumhr ng· - :I(]k )
and Foolishness to the '.ir~~k")
(Continued)
Ie fevl1s
There is no end to the sophistries, misstatements, and puerilities
whi(..:;" th", m~er.uS marshal against Verbal Inspiration. But there
is ar>. end to the readers' patience. So we shall bring our ex nina-
tion of the first objection to an end with the present writing.
No. 18, When the moderns ask us co yield up ~rl l I pi] ,-
tion, frankly to admit that the holy writers made many mistakes,
.w ~"lL~er ;..,; 6~VC ~l".: il~r1~ ;e"l:l .'~w>.' tv be offended and keep men
from being forced into skepticism, they commit a psychological
fallacy. - The moderns actually make this proposaL "Take the