Full Text for CTM Theological Observer 9-9 (Text)

QTnurnr~ta: m4tnlngual :!InutlJly COl1tiDl1il1g LEHRE UND ~EHRE MAGAZIN PUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Vol. IX September, 1938 No.9 CONTENTS Pale Mastering the Technique of Sel'DlOn Building. E. J. Friedrich ______ 641 Kleine Danielstudien. L. Fuel'brlngel' . ___ . _________________ .___________________________ 648 Erasmus on Luther. Wm. Dallmann ______ _ _____ . _______________________________ _ 660 That Review of Pastor Goel'ss's Book in the "Lutheran" Martin Sommer _. ___ __ _____________________ __ ._ 674 Sermon Study on Jas.5:13-20. Th. Laetsch _______________________ 678 Miscellanea ____ __ _______ __ __ _ ____ .___ _ __ _ ______________ . ________ .. _. _ 896 Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeilgeschichtliches ______ ... ________ 703 Book Review. - Literatur _ . . __ . Eln Predlger mWIII nlcht alleln wei- den, also dass er die Schafe unter- weise. wte ale rechte ChrWen 6011en .eln. Bondern 8uch daneben den Woel- fen wehren. dais sie die Schafe nlcht angreUen und mit falscher Lehre ver- fuehren und Irrtum elnfuehren. Lu ther _ . ___ __ .--____________ . _____ 713 Es tst keln Ding. das die Leute mehr bel del' Klrche behaelt denn die gut e Predl&t. - Apo/o~. A rt. 24 . If the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare h1mH1f to the battle? -1 Cor. 14. B. Published for the Ev. Lutb. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States CONCOBDIA PUBLISHING BOUSE, St. LoWs, Mo. Theological Observer - ~itd)nd)~8eit(lefd)id)tltcf)es 703 ~ological I. 2(mtriktl The I:.:f::"C·C:lrc,: that Keep ihne:dcllln Lutherans ham Complete Uni- fication. - Dr. A. J. Traver's article in "The Young People" section of the Lutheran of June 8 is entitled "Growing Lutheran Unity." Under the heading "Missouri and Ohio" it states: "About a century ago a wave of German immigration came to the Middle West. A center of this settlement was St. Louis, Mo. Unlike their Eastern brethren of a century before, they settled in such large numbers that whole communities were practically German in language and custom. The Lutheran Church easily became exclusive and separate under these conditions. In addi- tion their leaders had been vigorous opponents of the forced union of Lutherans and other Protestants in Prussia. Some had met persecution for refusal to compromise their convictions. In time a synod was formed named Missouri, and this with other similar synods became The Synod- ical Conference. Th.is body of Lutherans has no fellowship with the United Lutheran Church. It fears what it calls unionism. That is the name for any union as to organization that does not fully represent an inner agreement on all essentials. This group refuses to allow other Lutheran pastors to preach in its pulpits and other Lutheran people to commune at its altars. It is a vigorous group, however, fast adopting modern methods for its work. It is becoming increasingly influential in the national life." (We shall not take the time to discuss the last sen- tence and the latter half of the preceding one.) "What is said of this group may also be said of the origin of The Joint Synod of Ohio and of the various national synods which trans- plant in a measure their European languages and customs. Every Lutheran nation is represented by some type of national organization- Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, and the like. Usually these im- migrants settled in clans, where the language and customs would not be lost. It is easy to see how they, too, would be led to a position of exclusion so far as other Christian groups were concerned. Hundreds of thousands of their young people drifted into other Protestant churches, But those who remained are giving a new leadership to these synods. Ai> a result they are federated into The American Lutheran Conference, and while maintaining their identity, they are gradually fusing into a mighty power for Christ. They extend a larger measure of fellowship to the United Lutheran Church and are more often found working with them in their common interests. This group with the United Lutheran Church has a bond of unity in The National Lutheran Council. They also belong to The Lutheran World Convention." Under the heading of "Differences" four points are discussed. This section reads: "The differences that keep American Lutherans from complete unification are more on the surface than real. They are: 1) All agree that the Scriptures are inspired. But some insist that some certa.in method of inspiration should be accepted while others, as in the 704 Theological Observer - Rtrcf}ncf}=.8dt\lefcf}icf}t!icf}e~ United Lutheran Church, declare that the fact of inspiration must be accepted while the method may be a matter of opinion." This state- ment does not describe the situation correctly. There is no agreement on the matter of inspiration between the United Lutheran Church and us. True enough, "all agree that the Scriptures are inspired." But that does not mean a thing in this connection. The rankest liberal, rationalist, Pelagian, will subscribe to the thesis that Scripture is inspired. He will say: Sure, just as Emerson and Shakespeare were inspired. It all depends upon what you mean by inspiration; it all depends on what our article is pleased to call "the method." When we say that every word of Holy Scripture is inspired, the very word of God, absolutely true, and others refuse to say that, the difference between us is not merely on the surface but is a real one. And a vital one. Those who have read The New Testament Commentary, H. C. Alleman, ed., know that a wide gulf separates the Lutherans of America in the matter of inspiration. Dr. Reu declared that the gulf is impassable. (See CONC. THEOL. MTHLY., current year, p. 296 ff.) Dr. Dell made the same state- ment. (See p. 357 ft.) The theologians of the U. L. C. should know, and should tell their young people, that the differences in the doctrine of in- spiration as taught by leading theologians of the U. L. C. and by us are irreconcilable. The other points of difference mentioned are: '(2) There is a very marked difference as to the relationship of Lutherans with other Prot- estants. Unionism seems to be the acme of all sins to many Lutheran leaders. The United Lutheran Church does not fear unionism as do many of the other groups. Dr. Greever suggests [in the Lutheran World Almanac for 1937] that there could be a wholesome discussion on the subject, 'Resolved, That the sins of unionism are greater than the sins of separatism.''' The sin of separatism is a grievous sin. But the subject of the present paragraph is unionism. Let us stick to that. We shall call upon Dr. J. C. Mattes to discuss that. He will show that the sin of unionism is a most grievous one. And it will be seen L'1at the difference on unionism is a real one. "3) Membership in secret orders is another bone of contention. The problem here is whether such a matter is to be regulated by legal en- actment of the Church and discipline enforced or whether the entire matter is to be left to the conscience of the individual." The question in reality is whether a Christian can be permitted to join secret orders. "4) Dr. Greever also suggests that dogmatism stands in the way of Lutheran understanding. He quotes the late Dr. H. E. Jacobs: 'A dogma is a definition of doctrine made by church authority, and therefore the term dogma and doctrine are not synonymous.' The temptation for the theologian is to include too much in his dogma, to go beyond the clearly established facts of the Bible, and to insist upon his own in- terpretation of them. Says Dr. Greever: 'Open minds for open questions by all might promote fellowship.''' Let him who will discuss the differ- ence between dogma and doctrine. What concerns us just now is that clearly revealed doctrines of Holy Scripture are being denied by theolo- gians of the United Lutheran Church, important, fundamental doctrines. Dr. Traver should inform his young people that Dr. C. H. Little of the U. L. C. has written a book on Disputed Doctrines, the very first chapter of which contains the statement that "the Biblical doctrine of predestina- tion excludes synergism in all its forms" and, without mentioning names, takes issue with the men in the U. L. C. who do teach synergism. It is a notorious fact that to this day leading theologians of the U. L. C. pub- licly teach synergism. The differences that keep American Lutherans from complete unification are real. The last section, headed "Signs of the Times," closes thus: "8) Im- pelling Conviction. There is a universal opinion that Lutherans must get together. Laymen and women are speaking out as never before against separation. They are even forcing the hands of their leaders." Indeed, Lutherans must get together. God wants a united Lutheran Church, united in the truth, free from all false teaching. God bless the laymen who are working towards this end. But we cannot quite un- derstand the statement that in this matter "the laymen and women are even forcing the hands of their leaders." We have not encountered such a phenomenon in our midst. Are the laymen in the U. L. C. forcing the hands of their leaders? Dr. Traver approves of their attitude. He is telling his young people that this is an encouraging sign. Now, are these laymen right? Are they taking the Biblical position, demanding a union in the truth? If so, their leaders must be taking a wrong position. On the other hand, if the leaders are right, they should not permit the lay- men to force their hands. Or are some of the leaders of the U. L. C. determined to prevent a union at all costs, even though unity of doctrine is attained? Finally, if the laymen of the U. L. C. are at odds with their leaders, should that not be attended to before a union on a wider scale is attempted? Surely the young people will find this situation most puzzling. E. A Pronouncement agamst Unionism. - "The Relation of the Lu- theran Church to Other Churches" is the title of an article by Dr. J. C. Mattes which appeared in the Lutheran Church Quarterly, April issue, p.128 ff. The first paragraph reads: "The assertion that one faith is as good as another or that it does not matter what a man believes so long as he is sincere, proves nothing so much as the absence of true faith. It is only another way of saying that a man's inner emotions count for more than God's objective revelation. Sometimes that sentiment takes the form of a pseudo-toleration that would forget all differences of belief because, after all, we are all worshiping one God, accept the same moral code, or think we do, and all have the same laudable purpose of up- lifting man." A subsequent paragraph reads: "There is no place in the New Testament for sectarianism. The Lord spoke of one fold and one Shep- herd, and His prayer of intercession pleaded that all might be one. St. Paul knows only one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, and he upbraids the Corinthians for the divisions that were among them, 1 Cor. 1:10; 3: 3; 11: 18, and tells them that there should be no schism in the body, He beseeches the Romans to 'mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.' We might perhaps do well to include the next verse: 'For they that are 45 such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.' Can these be prophetic descriptions of some of the paid agents of various union movements? The ideal of the New Testament is not unionism or mere external union but unity. . .. There must be unity, not schism, in the body of C1-.~~ot o~,:l .,11 t].."t r1;orupts the body of Christ is sin. But this does not mean that unity is to be preserved at the expense of fidelity or by any surrender of an absolute and uncompromising fidelity to the faith once delivered to the saints. The Church must be kept free from every taint of impure teaching or false doctrine, and all offenders against sound doctrine are to be expelled from the Church. . .. Even the most gentle and loving of the apostles says: 'If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed; for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.' " Again: "There can be no outward union with those with whom there is no inward unity. It is impossible for two to walk together unless they be agreed, Amos 3:3. Any attempt to do so must result either in the tacit denial of the importance of all the truths included in God's revelation, by making elaborate distinctions between the truths we must keep and those we can disregard, or else must lead to a most elastic sense of honesty on the part of those who thus seek union even at the cost of true unity. This was Luther's reason for not taking Zwingli's hand at IVIarburg. He was fully convinced that he was justified in saying: 'Sie haben einen anderen Geist.' And this is the reason why the Lutheran Church has steadfastly refused to become a part of unionistic movements that grope after an outward union, it la Rome, but which are ready to disregard the real inner unity of faith." Dr. Mattes next quotes Luther: "If some broad-minded person, as they like to be called, should say, 'What does it matter, so long as we hold fast to God's Word, if we allow some additional teachings that are not so offensive to stand beside it?' I would answer that they may be called broad-minded people, but they are people with erring and deluded minds." And this from his Warnungsschrift an die zu Frankfurt am Main, sich var ZwingUscher Leh?'e und Lehrern zu hueten: "If anyone knows that his pastor is publicly teaching Zwinglianism, he should avoid him and should rather do without the Sacrament all his life than receive it from him; yea, he should be ready to suffer all things, even death, in so doing. . .. It is terrible for me to hear that in the same church or at the same altar two parties should seek and receive the same Sacrament, the one believing that it receives mere bread and wine, the other believing that it receives the true body and blood of Christ. I marvel that it should be possible that a preacher or pastor could be so hardened or malicious that he could keep silence and allow both parties to go on in their delusion that they have received one Sacrament, eacb one according to his own belief, etc. . .. It is true that, when the preachers distribute nothing but bread and wine, it does not make much difference to whom they administer it or what those who receive it know or believe. There is a case where 'all sows eat out of one trough,' and there such care is useless. . .. Because we administer Christ's body Theological Observer - Ritd)ltd}=3ettllefd)td}tnd)e!l 707 and blood in the Sacrament, we neither would nor could administer it to anyone unless he was examined, etc." (St. L. ed., 17, 2007 ff.) Dr. Mattes continues: "During the struggles of the last century one state- ment was formulated that in its primary statement is and remains the correct statement of the Lutheran position and whose principles will al- ways be binding on the conscience and practise of those who profess real Lutheranism. It is the so-called Galesburg Rule: 'Lutheran pulpits are for Lutheran ministers only, Lutheran altars are for Lutheran com- municants only.' This is a correct statement of the normal Lutheran position, which grows logically out of the fundamental Scriptural position as that was outlined before." The concluding sentences read: "Always and ever we must guard our people against the subtle propaganda of the order of religious camels who want to stick their noses into the tent on the plea that we are all one and who, once they are within, display their love by saying, 'You are all wrong; you must do things our way.' Practically, that is the way it always works. The plea is always for cooperation on their basis, not on the basis of faith. So it seems we can again hear the prophet Amos asking his ancient question: 'How can two walk together except they be agreed?' " - Dr. Traver should inform his young people that his statement "The United Lutheran Church does not fear unionism as do many of the other groups" needs some restriction. E. Is This ChHiasmus Crassns 01" Chiliasmus Crassissimus? - The Lu- theran of March 30 published an article by Dr. Kunzmann, "Revelation. Chapter 20," which contains the following: "And so we are confident that during the millennium the Edenic conditions on earth will be restored and that there shall be a tree of life in the New Jerusalem above which sheds its leaves twelve times a year for the health of the nations upon earth and that those who eat of the tree of life and are subject to the rule of the iron rod and implicitly obey shall live during the thousand years. It is only the disobedient H,-,t shall die during that period. Life shall be so prolonged that a transgressor who dies at a hundred years shall be considered only a child." Do the readers of the Lutheran be- lieve such things, or does the Lutheran want them to read and mayhap believe such things? Here is another choice bit from the same article. The millennialists use as a sedes doctrinae for their teaching of a double resurrection 1 Cor. 15: 23,24: "But every man in his own order (Ev .0 tMO) .6.YIlU.L): Christ the First-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's at His coming. Then cometh the end." The accepted interPretation of this passage among the milIennialists is (or rather has been): "'Each in his own order,' rather rank, 'each in his own regiment.' Christ first and after Him the godly, in a separate band from the ungodly; and 'then the end,' i. e., the resurrection of the rest of the dead. Christ's own flock shall share His glory 'at His coming,' which is not to be confounded with 'the end,' or general Judgment. . .. The second coming of Christ is not a mere point of time but a period beginning with the resurrection of the just at His appearing and ending with the general Judgment, v.24. Then - after that, next in the succession of 'orders' or 'ranks,' the end - the general 708 Theological Observer - ~itd){id)~8eitgefd)id)md)e~ resurrection." (Jamieson-Fausset-BroVJn Commentary.) The Lutheran Commentary, edited by H. E. Jacobs, accepts this interpretation. We quote: "V. 23. 'But each in his own order. Three groups, or ranks, suc- cessively appear: 1. Christ, 2. 'they that are His,' viz., all believers, and 3. by implication, the resurrection of the unbelieving is included in 'the end,' mentioned in the next verse. (Cp. 1 Thess. 4: 16.)" Dr. Kunzmann improves on this interpretation. He is not satisfied with only three or- ders, troops. He writes: "True, all the dead shall be raised; but Paul tells us that they shall not be indiscriminately raised, but every dead person shall be raised in the 'tagma,' the company, the rank, to which he be- longs. So we have had a number of resurrections: the Old Testament saints in Matthew, the elders (Presbuteroi) in First Thessalonians, the tribulation saints in the seventh chapter, the seed of the woman caught up to God in the twelfth, the 144,000 in the fourteenth chapter, and here the l.ast company of martyrs, who were slain before the end of the tribu- lation period in the twentieth chapter. These complete the first resur- rection, and over these death hath no power. You will also notice that, when the resurrection of the just and the unjust is spoken of, the just are always mentioned first. When the Codex Sinaiticus speaks of the resurrection which takes place in Rev. 20: 11-15, it tells us that they were all condemned. Certainly God never mixes up things. In this second resurrection were those who perished with Antichrist. In this second resurrection are those who die during the millennium because they do not obey the Law. In this second resurrection are the hordes of Gog and Magog, and after it there are no fallen angels in heaven nor fallen men on earth." - Just why did the Lutheran print and publish this? E. II. :Aushmb ~in ernfteil j!B.od ge:llen bie iSarmer ttnionilj)luttj'orm. ;;Sn ber "m:. ®. 2. Sl!." unterfuc9t in fUnf raufenben IlrrlifeIn 113farrer ~. lffi. §jopf bon IDlliijr~ ~aufen hie vefannte marmer Union~jJrattform, bie atlJilcgen vefennenben Eu~ tr)eranern unb ffieformierlen ein getlJiffe~ (§inigung~i3ieI ~erilufteUen berfuc9te. :tla~ ffiefurtat feiner Unterfuc9ung geftaltet fic9 fo: "meim ffilicMicf auf bie (§rgevniff e unf erer 113riifung ber einaefnen marmer 6ii~e fteUen tlJir feft, bat bie borre unb einbeutige meaeugung ber bi0ijer in ben Iutijetifcgen me~ fennini~fc9riften au~gefpr()cgenen £el)rein~eit tlJeber flir einen einilelnen 6at noc9 fUr hie ganae (§dfiirung f>eijaujJ±et tlJerben barf. :tle~~alli ift hie mat~ mer ®rfliirung auc9 in feiner lffieife geeignet, ijur meanttvortung ber fo~ genann±en ,offcnen' 5.leqrfragen f>eiautragen, lif>er hie vi~l}er in unferer Sl!itcge nod) feine @iinigreit erreid.)± tlJerben fonnte. m:ne, bie aUf hie 3eicgen ber 3eit ac9±en unb auf bie 3ufunf± unfer~ ~(§rrn :;s(§fu ~~rifti luat±en aLs tlJad.)fame unb arlJeUenbe Sl!ned.)te (nadj Eu!. 12,42.43), fouten be.rf±e~en, bat tlJir in reiner ffiSeife beraniluorten fonnen, ba~ unierer Sfircge bor anbern berne~enc toftbare l13funb ber reinen, fc9tiftgemiiten Eeijre ttn±er bem (§in~ brucf augenlJIicfHd.)er (§inmiingreit in Sl!amjJfe~fragen au berfc9Ieubern ober auc9 nm au berfd.)feietn. :tlenn tlJir vraucgen bie~ (§rve fUr bie 3ufunft ber ganaen ~l)riftengeit aUf ®rben. lffiir mlitten aner babon laWen, tlJenn tlJir bet marmer (§dfiirung ben 113rei~ ciner rec9ten m:u~regung unb m:ntlJenbung unferi21 mefenntniffeil ijuerfennen tlJouten. :tliefe (§rfliirung fUijd un~ atlJar aum ~ragen, aver il}re m:nttlJorlen fonnen un~ tlJeber noften noc9 ftiiden nod) unfcre &emeinllen ben unberfalfd)±en @eliraud) bon ~ort unb 6afra~ ment re~ren. ~rrren Iutljerifcljen ~rilbern alier, Die mit un;;; bie ~inbung em ~armcn aliTeljnen, mUfl gefagt roerben, bafl ber unferer .mrd)e berorbnete ,~amj.Jf unb geroiefene ~eg nid)t reicfjter unb biffiget, fonbern ljader, teurer un" bor arrem bier, bier einfamet ift ag ber ~eg bon ~armen. ~ur roer nicfjt tueniger, fonbern meljt ag bie ~armet @:!rflarung nad) 2eljte unb ,3ucfjt, Sl>taft unb @eroifl!)eit betfangt unb ben .\j@:!rrn bet Si'itcfje batum oittet, fann ljeu±e mit ben miiiern unfetet SHtd)e in @:!inigreit bei:l @fauoeni:l le!)ten unb oefennen." stIai3 ift ein ~Ui:lfj.Jtltd) einei:l 2ltt~etaneri:l, bet roo!)l fie!)t, rote ittefiiljtenb eine lInioniftifd)e ~lattfotm ift unb roie roicfjtig ei:l ift, ban lu±lje~ tifd)e ~aftoren unb @emeinben Dei bem ~efenn±nii:l ber SfitdJc oleioen. ~ur witb ficfj fUt fold)e ~aftoten in bet llnionifHf cfjen moIfi:lfitcfje leine oleilienbe 6tiitte finben lanen, folange fie geroiffenljaft anf @otiei:l ~ort btingen. ;;Sljnen .breilit fcfjIienHcfj nUt bet ~ui3±titt. ;;So ~. m. Public Recognition of Our Fellow-Lutherans in Australia. - On June 8 the Adelaide Advertiser published an editorial on the Lutherans who immigrated into Australia a hundred years ago, which for the sake of its historical interest we bring to the notice of our readers. The editorial (as reprinted in the Australian Lutheran, June 10, 1938) reads: "One hundred years ago today the first batch of German Lutherans adventurously left their native village of Klemzig, in Prussia, for the newly founded province of South Australia. The reason for their de- parture was that fruitful one of exile, religious persecution; but in the record of their exodus and subsequent settling stands out, in compelling detail, the figure of the man who so boldly and capably conceived and executed the whole project - Pastor Augustus Kavel. "He was indeed a minor Moses, successfully conducting his per- secuted people out of bondage and into a land of freedom and boundless promise. "Born in 1798, Kavel was appointed pastor of t..l}e Evangelical Lu- theran Churc..h at Klemzig in 1826, just as the quarrel between King Frederick William ill and the Lutheran. Church had begun to assume serious proportions. "It was a modern manifestation of the old, desperate clash between spiritual and temporal values. In 1817 a union had been effected between the Reformed and the Lutheran churches, and as the king was ambi- tious to bring about the welding together of the Germanic peoples into one people, he issued, in 1822, an entirely new liturgy, which he ordered to be used in the military and garrison churches and recommended to all Protestant communities. The new liturgy was at once unwelcome and met with such determined and continued protestation that at last, in 1829, it was revised and various concessions made. "But Protestant opinion considered the concessions inadequate and pressed for their reconsideration. The king, however, ignored the request and acted ruthlessly. Dissentient pastors were immediately imprisoned, dismissed, or banished; police supervision was enforced, and fines were levied upon them. They were, further, forbidden to administer Holy Communion or to attend private meetings of their parishioners. "This coercive and insufferable attitude was rootedly unfair, since the new liturgy contained statements which were contrary to the Augs- 71 0 Theological Observer - .Ritd)Hd)