Propter Christum I, 1

Propter Christum Advent, 2011

Volume I, Issue 1

Church and Scripture

Propter Christum I, 1 2

"... damnant nos, quod docemus, homines non propter sua merita, sed

gratis propter Christum consequi remissionem peccatorum fide in

Christum." "... they condemn us, because we teach that men, not on

account of their own works, but graciously on account of Christ, obtain

remission of sins by faith in Christ." (Apology IV, 1)

Propter Christum is a Confessional Lutheran theological journal put out

by the students of Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St.

Catharines, Ontario.

Propter Christum is a student-run theological journal brought to you by

the students of Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary. Meant for

writing about and discussing theological issues, we maintain the central

article of justification by grace through faith in Christ on account of

Christ apart from the works of the law. This journal exists for the sake

of improving our skills in research, and also for enhancing our

knowledge of theology. Our goal is to present articles in the theological

disciplines of exegetical, historical, systematic, and practical theology.

We look forward to discussing these issues with anyone who is willing.

For letters to the editor, please write to the student editor at

[email protected].

The opinions expressed by the contributors of Propter Christum do not

necessarily reflect the views of the faculty or student body of Concordia Lutheran

Theological Seminary, St. Catharines.

Faculty advisor: Dr. William Mundt

Student Editor: Andrew Preus

Contributors: Daniel Bonato; John Nieminen; Andrew Preus

Contact Information:

Visit us at propterchristum.blogspot.com

CONCORDIA LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY (concordia-seminary.ca)

470 GLENRIDGE AVENUE

ST. CATHARINES, ONTARIO L2T 4C3

TEL (905) 688-2362

FAX (905) 688-9744


Table of Contents

Hymn Section

Oh Jesus When You Came to Save Us -----------------------------------------------------4

Andrew Preus

Articles:

Exegetical study on Ephesians 1: 15-23 ----------------------------------------------------5

Daniel Bonato

Krauth and Walther: Church and Ministry, and Lutheran Theology-------------------16

Andrew Preus

The Authority of Scripture: Charismatic Movement vs Lutheran Theology --------33

John Nieminen


HYMN SECTION

Ephesians 5:19

Oh Jesus When You Came to Save Us Text: Andrew Preus

Tune: Wer weiss, wie nahe, Christian Mck (TLH: 65)

Oh Jesus, when You came to save us, Of sin or guilt, no spot to trace,

Your life You lived so pure and precious.

The Father smiled upon Your face: "This is My Son in Whom I'm pleased!"

Through You Gods judgment was appeased!

You died for all; You bore God's anger,

And resurrected from the dead.

Forsaken by Your righteous Father, You took His judgment in our stead.

Sin, what You hate, You then became.

For all You live to cover blame!

Oh Jesus, coming by the Spirit

Through Word and Holy Sacrament, Forgiveness is what we inherit

When faith receives what God has sent:

His only Son. Oh Lord, we pray That You be near us everyday!


Articles

Exegetical study on Ephesians 1: 15-23

The Greek text shall be given together with the translation and

commentary on each verse

Ephesians 1:

15 ,

'

, On account of this I myself, having

heard your faith in the Lord Jesus and love, the one toward all the

saints,

. - I also This could also be translated as even I (Matthew 18:33) or I myself. The difference in meaning is insignificant, only that saying I also seems to require the apostle to have done some action prior to this point so that he could now say: I also; if the berakah in the beginning could have been in the first person I praise God... then it would make sense to have now an

I also but as it is, the only two options that stand a chance for

consideration are even I and I myself. Both are very close as well, meaning that Paul is

emphasizing, with a small element

of surprise, that he Paul, the apostle, did not cease to give thanks

on account of that. But why the

surprise? Perhaps the entire passage must be interpreted differently,

having the referring to what has been said from verses 3-

14: on account of THAT, I, having also heard...give thanks meaning that even though he also heard

about their faithfulness in Christ and love to all saints, the reason for

Pauls thanksgiving is really what he spoke upon from verses 3-14, which are the deeds of God unto

them. If that is the case, it is

misleading to have this pericope stand by itself, since it cannot be

complete without verses 3-14. In the vast majority of occurrences,


is used referring to that which was said previously;

however, there are some

occurrences where it refers to what follows, namely Mark 12.24; John

8.47?; 10.17? 12.18? Romans

4.16?; 13.6?; 1 Corinthians 11.10?; 2 Corinthians 13.10; 1

Thessalonians 2.13; 1 Timothy

1.16; 2 Timothy 2.10; Philemon 1.15; 1 John 3.1?. This is from a

pool of 64 occurrences (14 times

referring to what precedes and 50 times referring to what follows).

Even then there is more that can be

said. From those occurrences,

those followed by are somehow in the middle position. In

those cases, serves as an explanatory clause for

something that might have been

alluded previously in a non explicit

way, and after we find something that serves as an

explanatory clause introduced by

but more often which introduces a clause of purpose. It is

difficult to draw a clear line, and

perhaps the attempt to divide the

into two classes (referring to what was said or

referring to what will be said) is an

artificial attempt. Whatever the

case, unless one takes the of

verse 17 as the clause of purpose,

the usage in this passage carries

much more resemblance with the majority usage (where it refers to

what was already stated). Even

then the ain reasonto which points out is still before

very explicitly stated: ou were sealed with the promised Holy

Spirit...) or this reason( pray that He continue to come to you.

' This construction seems uncommon. The

only similar construction I could find in the NT was in Col. 1.4-

Though unusual, it is another use of

the preposition ; it might serve as a possessive pronoun when followed by a noun in a case that is

not genitive. Another scriptural

example of this particular usage of

is found in Romans 1.15:

'

Thus, the willingness of me... Acts 18.15 is the other reference for this usage.

It does not appear as normal usage to have

faith in Jesus written that way in


Greek. Usually the object of faith is

in the Genitive case (Mk 11.22,

Rev 14.12, James 2.1) or with the

preposition (Acts 20.21).

Whenever the preposition is used it is not indicating the object

of the faith in question (Mt. 8.10; 2

Pe. 1.1). In this particular passage the object of faith is not mentioned,

but we obviously know who that is. The faith in Christ that you have being in Christ is understood.

I find it interesting that Nestle/Aland settled

here for this variant (txt Sinaiticus

2nd

hand, Bezae 1st hand, and others

of lesser importance), when we

have, in my opinion, heavier

evidence that only words 3-7 are

present, thus reading

(p46, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and

others). However, it does not change anything significant in the

meaning: your faithfulness in Christ and towards all the saints It seems likely that as time went,

and the word came to be understood as simply faith and the meaning faithfulness decreased in importance over time,

and also in scripture it is not as

common, and so reading faith in Christ and towards all the saints someone well intentioned might

have felt compelled to make it clear

that what we have towards all the saints is love, not faith.

16

I do not cease giving thanks on

your behalf, making remembrance

when at my prayers

. - I translated as referring to time, while, at the time of

17

,

,

in order that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father

of glory, may give to you the Spirit of wisdom and

revelation in the knowledge of Him

1 Corinthians 12.8 : To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of

wisdom...Based on this it is clear that the Spirit of God is someone, not something. When Scripture

refers to God giving us the Spirit, it

does not mean He is giving us something impersonal, some thing;


rather He gives Himself for us through the Holy Spirit. The pervading action of the HS in His

dwelling in us sanctifies us. He

that dwells in us also enables us with wisdom and understanding of

God's word.

Is. 11.2 is probably what Paul is referring to, here I quote from ESV for quick

reference: And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and

understanding, the Spirit of counsel

and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. Also in Isaiah the Spirit of hwhy is an active entity, not a substance.

1

Having Is. 11.2 as background for

this, we can see the central theme

of the entire epistle. Because of what is foreseen by Isaiah to be the

quality of the One, the righteous

branch, Paul here prays for all Christians, even though He, that is

the Holy Spirit, is already there in

baptism. And so in baptism it happens to us, just as it is with the

righteous branch, that the Spirit of

the LORD rests upon us, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the 1 The verb > is on the Qal perfect Waw

Consecutive. The feminine ending however is a

question for an advanced study on its own. Out of the scope of the present work, there is a lot to be

said about genders in Hebrew language.

Spirit of counsel and might, the

Spirit of knowledge and the fear of

the LORD. Thus in baptism we are made like Him; He lives in us; we

are transformed into Him in a way

that is far too marvellous to be explained by human words. The

new man born within us in baptism

is Christ, and that new man shall live, but we, ourselves, are

transformed into someone else all

the while remaining who we are. Our sentiences are not

extinguished; our souls not lost. In

a wonderful way God saves us from destruction, kills the sinner in us,

and preserve our souls. The

miraculous complexity of this process is all the work of the

Paraclete. How can that be, human

language and understanding fail to represent. If we understand the Spirit spoken of in this verse as the Holy Spirit, than we have in this verse all three persons of the

Trinity. This pericope is strong in Trinitarian structure, as we shall see

further.

18

[]

,


Having the eyes of your heart been

enlightened so that you know what

is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His

inheritance in the saints,

is followed by infinitive indicates purpose or maybe result. Considering the

participle in the perfect, I took it as meaning result of the eyes of their hearts having been enlightened Having the eyes of your heart been enlightened - Clear

reference to holy baptism (vide

John 9 and Acts 9, as well as Justin Martyr), this is an accomplished

reality that came to pass in baptism

when the Holy Spirit came to dwell in us. It is a mistake to believe that

in baptism we do not have the Holy Spirit, but if we pray fervently enough, He might come to us

afterwards. That is not what Paul is doing. Paul prays for the Holy Spirit despite the fact that He has

already come to us in Holy Baptism

and it is an accomplished fact, as it is shown in verse 18. We also

grieve and deny the Holy Spirit

many times after baptism. It is a relationship that we have with Him,

and as such, it is never complete or

incomplete, but ongoing. We, by our actions and thoughts (and

inactions and thoughtlessness) say

to Him all day that we do not want

to be holy, or maybe we want Him so long as we can remain in our old

vices. There is nothing with

praying, as Paul does, that He come and abide with us. It does not mean

He was never there. It simply

means that in our misery of sin we daily push Him out, and so we need

to continue to pray that He return to

us closer than the distance our sinfulness separates us from Him.

We daily return to our baptism

remembering when He came to us. It is like a married couple where

two love each other, but the

husband is doing all the possible wrong. When the relationship

suffers, he might be struck with

remorse, realising his wrong doings (which he can't help himself since

he is too flawed), and in sorrow of

losing the one he loves, he remembers the day they were

married and how much joy he had that day, and he asks forgiveness.

Going back to that day, he is asking

for a new beginning and forgiveness.

2 Remembering our

2 In this illustration I used the male as the

unrighteous one asking forgiveness to His beloved

yet neglected wife, because the clich is too strong

to avoid. The biblical image, however, is that Christ is the bridegroom who is faithful while the bride,

the Church in this sinful world continually asks


baptism, we ask the Holy Spirit a

new beginning and forgiveness for

our grievances. And that He grants us, as many times as we return, for

where sin is great, the grace of God

is greater on account of Christ, whose blood affords us redemption,

the forgiveness of our trespasses.

19

and what is the surpassing

greatness of His power toward us who believe according the working

of the might of His strength

vv. 18&19- riches of the

glory of His inheritance; surpassing greatness of His power; working of the might of His strength In each of these three groups of words we have three words connected by genitives

(second of these groups is

participle-nominative-genitive, but the words are still connected). Is

Paul alluding to the Holy Trinity

when using three groups of three? It is a possibility. We also have a

sequence of three What is clauses

forgiveness for her unfaithfulness.

which are going more or less

together. This all begins with so that you know what is the hope of His calling. The three what is clauses already represent the work

of God and that in Trinitarian form (threefold repetition) within these

we find: what is the hope, what

is the inheritance, what is the

power. While exposing these he goes further into Trinitarian

structure, showing that in all of these all three persons of the Trinity

are involved; each one of these are

threefold (by means of genitives and participles) in order to show the

great complexity and majesty of

Gods operations. Not merely compounding words together to

make it look prettier, Paul is

declaring the nature of the one who is at work in us. He is threefold,

yet all three work together in one

result, in which the threefold aspect is apparent, yet the unity is perfect

and intact.

20

,

which he worked in Christ when he

raised Him from the dead and seated at His right hand in the


heavenly places

21

far above all rule and authority and

power and dominion and every

name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come

22

,

and all things He put in subjection

under His feet, and Him He set as

head, above all things, to the Church

Christ is the head whether people believe in Him or not. He rules the

universe, but in particular with the

Church. There is more than simply a master-servant relationship; He is

the head of all, but the nature of the relationship is different, and a deeper union occurs with the

Church as we shall see in the next

verse

23 ,

who is His body, the completeness

of Him that all things in all people fulfils

vv.20-23

Paul is no longer using sets of

three. This is an important point for those who might argue that he

uses threefold structures just

because three is a balanced, or perfect number. Now there are four

things that he mentions about

Christ. Four is the number of the directions; it is the number of the

earth, perhaps the created order.

These four things are the fulfilments to prophecy. Here I

isolated some of them; however,

there are more references to that. On the careful selection of items,

He shows accurately the risen Lord;

He is the One in whose baptism we are deified.

3 It is important to keep

in mind that by means of His

ascension He achieves the ultimate

3 By deified, I want to strictly emphasize the fact

that God comes to dwell in us. In Baptism, we are clothed in the God-Man Christ (Gal. 3:27). Let it be

clear! I do not mean it in the same way as some

religious groups out there such as Mormons who believe there is no disparity between divine and

human natures.


goal: to be one with us. The price

of sin was paid already, but the

manner in which God gives us everlasting life is far more intricate

and amazing than just a calculation

of guilt and the producing of greater merit. He pervades us in a

wonderful way. So here are the

four things: -Raised him from the dead (Ps

16.10)

-Seated Him at His right hand (Ps 110.1)

-Put all things in subjection

under Him (Ps 110.1) -Set Him as head of the

Church (Ps 18:43, also John 15.1-

17 I am the vine you are the branches)

Those four things summarize Christ's ascension, from the depths

to the highest place, from the

bearer of the sins of the world to the ruler of the universe. vv. 22-23

Paul goes into very deep theology

here. Christ is the head of the Church in a special, organic way.

We are united with Him and made

one in His mystical body. But here is the paradox Paul presents: The

mystical body is the completeness

of Him that completes all things in

all people. He was never

incomplete, yet the mystical body is

His completeness. The mystical body completes Him, yet He is the

one who fulfils all things. How can

He be completed if He cannot change? To solve this problem,

Origen came up with his heresy of

the pre-existence of the souls, arguing that God is only God if He

has worshippers, so the souls also

must have always existed. This is false; however, Origen's error

serves to show us that there is

something beyond comprehension in the understanding of the mystical

body. It attempts to solve the

question by means of mundane logic, and it must fail. However the

fact that Paul can spill out such

paradox is evidence that he knew very well that they were instructed

in this. Paul was ever so careful

regarding this (1 Corinthians 3.2: I fed you with milk, not solid food

for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready; Hebrews 5.12: For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again

the basic principles of the oracles of

God. You need milk, not solid food). Even so, a great part of the imagery of the epistle is for the

sake of explaining this mystical


union. In baptism we are united

with Christ. We are united with

Christ in a way that is far more marvellous than simply being

enrolled under Him. By this union we are deified (see my footnote when I first used this

word) and made, by the activity of

the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, into Christ's resemblance. In this

union He dwells in us in a way that

at the end of all things, we, the sinners, will be forever lost and destroyed (that is to say the sinner

in us), and we the holy ones will live forever. We are made into

Him; all the while we remain

ourselves. Indeed The husband becomes one with his wife, for in

the only marriage that will last

forever, He becomes one with His Church. This is the marriage, the

one baptism in Christ which we

share, who were baptized into His name.

Structure

15 On account of this I myself,

having heard your faith in the Lord Jesus and

love, the one toward all the

saints, 16 I do not cease giving thanks on

your behalf, making remembrance

when at my prayers

17 in order that

the father of glory, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may

give to you the

Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him

18 Having the eyes of your heart been enlightened so that you know

what is the hope of His

calling, what are the

riches of the

glory of His inheritance in the saints,

19 and

what is the surpassing

greatness of His

power toward us who believe according the

working of

the might of His strength

20 which he worked in Christ when

He

-raised Him from the dead -seated at His right hand in

the heavenly places 21 far above

>all rule and >authority and

>power and

>dominion and


every name that is named,

not only in this age, but

also in the one to come 22 and -all things He put in

subjection under His feet, and

-Him He set as head, above all things, to

the Church 23 who is

His body, the completeness of Him

that all things in

all people fulfils

Considering the question on

the use of . led me to an

interesting thought. If the

of verse 15 is understood as referring to what was mentioned on

the previous pericope (3-14) so that

. makes more sense, then perhaps some signs in structure should indicate the dependency of

this pericope on the previous one.

In examining this question, I found that there is an overall chiastic

structure arching from 3 down to

23, despite the very clear structure that can be found from 3-14.

Perhaps this is another case of

selective perception, just as when one sees shapes in the clouds.

Nevertheless, I will put it here,

whether it has value or not. The overarching chiasm is very loose;

instead of arranging it in word by

word, I will put it in themes. This

superstructure can only be seen in terms of themes, not so much

words or even length or balance of

composition. Perhaps their notion of structure was more complex than

we think. It might be that Paul

used strict chiastic structures to compose units, but also more

loosely overarching structures to

hint at the fact that chiastic units also relate with each other, and

should be read in context.

A (v.3) Blessed with EVERY

Spiritual Blessing

B (v.4) The people chosen before the ages

C (v.5) Destiny pre-set

according to His will D (v.6-10)

Beloved Saviour Crucified (Ben-

Joseph, suffering servant) E (v.11)

Inheritance by The working of His purpose

F (v.12)

You and I (who first believed) G

(v.13) believed (because of Spirit)

and were sealed G'

(v.14) down payment (Spirit),

redemption of what is God's


F' (v.15,16) You and I (I pray for

you) E' (v. 17-19)

The working of He that give us

inheritance, He that is threefold D' (v.20,21)

Beloved Saviour Ascended (Ben-

David, the lion of the tribe of Judah)

C' (v.22) He rules all

things B' (v.22) The Church His

mystical body

A' (v.23) He fills all in all After having studied this

pericope in detail, I find it

necessary that the segment covered in this paper is very dependent

upon the previous pericope.

Looking at this pericope not considering the previous pericope

might weaken the notion that this

entire pericope happens on account of what God did in the previous

pericope. Paul prays, yes, but in order that God might continue to do

what He has already done. Paul

always gives thanks on account of Christ's saving work, and also for

knowing of their faith and love that

flow from that union with Christ in Holy baptism. Paul gives thanks to

God, but not mainly because of

what the believers are doing. First

and foremost he give thanks to God

because of the great work God

wrought for us in Christ. This God, whose understanding is

unsearchable and whose might is

inextinguishable Trinity -- who is threefold in persons, yet in action,

He is in perfect harmony achieving

one result. For that wonderful deed that He accomplished in us all three

persons are engaged. Of those

three persons, one is He who died to atone for sins with His blood,

rising again in glory and fulfilling

in Himself all the messianic promises. He is the one from the

House of David, who is ruler

forever of all things. He that fulfils all things is the head, to whom the

body is united in holy baptism

forming one unity. The same blood cleanses; the same Spirit gives live;

the same God is all in all. We were

chosen before the ages to be His body and to be one with Him. That

is the purpose of the Christian faith and our goal as Christians in all that

we do, that we be united with our

Beloved now and in eternity.

Daniel Bonato is in his final

academic year at CLTS, St. Catharines, ON


Bibliography

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum

Graece, 27th edition

Arndt and Gingrich A Greek

English Lexicon of the New

Testament, 1957 Voels, James W. Greek Grammar,

2nd

edition, 1993

Krauth and Walther

Church and Ministry, and Lutheran Theology

Introduction

In the first volume of his

Christian Dogmatics, Francis

Pieper mentions that the Missouri Synod had a certain influence on

Charles Krauth. I will discuss the

extent of this influence along with Krauths position on the Office of

the Ministry in comparison with

that of C. F. W. Walther. The doctrine of the Office of

the Ministry was a great issue

among the German speaking Lutherans in the nineteenth century.

Beginning in 1840, the Missouri

Synod, led by C. F. W. Walther (1811-87) became involved in a

dispute with Johannes A. A. Grabau (1804-79), leader of the Buffalo

Synod, which J. K. Wilhelm Lhe

(1808-72) commented on almost a decade later. In giving his

examination of the debate, Lhe

sought to effect a resolution in doctrine and practice among

Missouri and Buffalo . In the

meantime, Charles Porterfield

Krauth (1823-83) was studying at Lutheran Theological Seminary in

Gettysburg, PA under Samuel

Simon Schmucker (1799-1873). Krauth would eventually engage in

a Confessional Lutheran movement

among American Lutherans, which would be in adversity to the

Reformed influence on his fellow

Lutherans. I will examine Krauths

17

theological development, his

relationship and correspondence with Walther, and his position on

the Office of the Ministry. This

will demonstrate where he stood particularly on this issue of Church

and Ministry in comparison with

Walther. In order that I might discuss

Krauths relationship with Walther on Church and Ministry, I must first give the background of Walthers debate with Grabau along with

Lhes position. After this, I will present the situation among

American Lutherans in the

nineteenth century from which Krauth arose. Finally, I will

demonstrate Krauths theological development and his relationship with Walther.

Part I: Walther, Grabau,

and Lhe on Kirche und Amt The dispute between Missouri and Buffalo arose from Grabaus response to congregations in

Milwaukee and Freistadt, WI. These congregations did not have

any pastors to serve them, and they

had asked Grabau if they could pick suitable men among themselves,

give them a call, and ordain them.

Grabau responded with his Hirtenbrief (pastoral letter), and he

also sent a copy of the letter to the

Lutherans in Missouri, hoping to gain support from them. In his

letter, he insisted that a pastor

cannot receive the ability to carry out the functions of the office

unless he is rightly called according

to the old German orders.4 He

wrote:

The [Augsburg]

Confession also calls him uncalled or improperly

called who is not called

rite, i. e. according to the consent of the old orders

of the church. The

Apology of the Augsburg Confession says

concerning this:

Concerning this point we have often said here at the

Reichstag that we are inclined to keep the old

church orders. From this it is clear that by rite vocatus they understand

that way of calling which

was in use in ancient, apostolic times, and was

also retained after the

Lutheran Reformation of

4 Winger, Thomas. "The Relationship of Wilhelm

Loehe to C. F. W. Walther and The Missouri Synod

in the Debae Concerning Church and Office."

Lutheran Theological Review. VII.1 & 2 (1995): 115-17. Print.

18

the church in Wittenberg

and all other orthodox places.

5

When Grabau sent this, the Missouri Lutherans were in the

midst of a debate concerning

Church and Ministry. After the expulsion in the Spring of 1839 of

their elected Bishop, Martin

Stephan, the laymen, lead by Franz Adolph Marbach, challenged the

clergymen, led by C. F. W. Walther,

in a debate concerning the nature of the Church. The idea that pastors

are not legitimate unless they are

ordained according to the old German orders was a touchy

subject for the Missourians who

had a poor experience with a hierarchical church government.

6

Dr. Thomas Winger (1995) has given an account of the debate

between Walther and Grabau from

the perspective of Lhe. Lhe had been instrumental in providing

Nothelfer (emergency men) to

5 Grabau, Johannes A. A. "Hirten Brief." Concordia

Theological Seminary Fort Wayne. Concordia Theological Seminary, n.d. Web. 12 Apr 2011.

. 6 Walther, C. F. W. "Christian Cyclopedia."

LCMS.ORG. LCMS, 2000. Web. 12 Apr 2011.

.

Confessional Lutherans in North

America. In 1850, in his Zugabe (supplement), he responded to the

debate occurring between Walther

and Grabau. Lhe pointed out the issues on which he believed both

parties agreed, the issues in which

both parties erred, the issues in which Walther erred, the issues in

which Grabau erred, and finally

issues which he believed should be left as open questions.

7

Lhe believed that both

parties agreed on the use of the old German Lutheran orders and the

doctrine of the priesthood of all

believers.8 He believed that both

parties erred insofar as they

acknowledge the immediate right of

the local congregation to choose and call their pastor. Lhe believed

that the least one could say is that no election or call of a pastor

should happen without the

assistance of an orthodox ministerium.

9 Further, he believed

that the Missouri Synod erred when

they appealed to Luther in saying that the congregation has the sole

right to call pastors. Lhe held that

ordination gives the power and authority for the Office of the

7 Winger. 107-31

8 ibid 118-20

9 ibid 120-21

19

Ministry, namely to baptize, teach,

administer the Lords Supper, and to Absolve sins.

10 Lhe pointed out

that Grabau errs when he refers to

Hebrews 13:1711

as proof that the congregations should obey their

pastors even in matters which do

not pertain to the Word and the Sacraments.

12

Finally, Lhe addressed those

things which were to remain open questions. Lhe believed that while

both parties agreed that ordination

should be retained, the question is whether or not ordination is part of

the rite vocatum esse (to be called

by rite). Lhe also addressed Grabaus opinion that if a layman celebrates the Lords Supper, the real presence cannot be effected since he is not in the Office. The

Missouri theologians said that it could, but they still maintained that

it should not be done. Because of

the differing views among Lutherans and the silence of the

Confessions, Lhe argued that the

question should remain open.13

Lhe agreed mostly with

10

122-25 11

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do

this with joy and not with groaning, for that would

be of no advantage to you. (ESV) 12

Winger. 125 13

126-29

Grabau. While the Missouri Synod

maintained that the call comes from the congregation, Lhe stressed that

ordination gives the power of the

Office to the officer. In his Aphorisms On the New

Testament Offices and their

Relationship to the Congregation, published in 1849, Lhe addresses

the issue of the call into the Office

and from where it comes. Concerning the participation of

congregations in electing their

elders, he writes: In Ac 14:23 we find that

Paul and Barnabas

appointed elders for the new congregations in

Lystra, Iconium, and

Antioch (in Pisidia) without any mention

being made of the slightest participation by

the congregations in the

election of the elders.14

Lhe points out that this act

of appointment was not only reserved to the Apostles. By this, he

disputes the argument that only the

14

Lhe, J. K. Wilhelm , translated by John Stephenson. Aphorisms on the New Testament

Offices and their Relationship to the

Congregation: On the Question of the

Church's Polity. 1. 1. Bynum, Texas: Repristination Press, 2008. 46. Print.

20

Apostles enjoyed this right, and that

after the Apostles, this right is reserved to the congregations. He

writes:

in the second most plainly pertinent passage

Tit. 1:5ff. We meet the

same state of affairs with respect to an evangelist.

St. Paul left his pupil Titus

behind in Crete in order that he might continue and

conclude the work that the

apostle had begun. And in what did this work

consist? In appointing

presbyters city by city in keeping with the definite

norm prescribed for him

by the apostle15 Lhe also addresses three

main proof-passages in Acts which were used by Lutheran Church

Fathers to say that the congregation

is involved in the election of a presbyter. These three passages

include Acts 1:23ff.16

; 13:2ff.17

; and

14:23ff.18

15

Ibid The emphasis is Lhes 16

So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and

Matthias. 17

While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have

called them. 18

23When they had appointed elders for them in

Dealing with the first passage,

Lhe explains that the congregations participation in Mathias election was sketched out in vague terms, and even if they did participate, the extraordinary

circumstances of the event (the

need for the twelfth Apostle before Pentecost) cannot give precedence

for a regular practice of the

Church.19

Dealing with the second passage, he quotes and responds to

Quenstedt who said that the whole

Church was present, laid hands on Barnabas and Saul, and sent them.

In his response Lhe argued that

there is no indication that anyone other than the prophets and teachers

laid hands on the two men. Dealing

with the third passage, Lhe, addresses the Greek word

(elected through the votes of others, appointed). He

argues that the apostles would have been in charge of the process,

appealing again to Titus 1:5 that

Paul put Titus in charge of

every church, having prayed with fasting, they

commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. 19

Here Lhe disagrees with Chemnitz. Thus in Acts 1:15 [-22] Peter proposes a directive as to the kind of person to be chosen; then the apostles

choose together with the church. Chemnitz, Martin. translated by J. A. O. Preus II.

Loci Theologici. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989. II: 702. Print

21

appointing the elders in the

congregations. For Lhe, the fact that a congregation may have been

able to give their opinions and be

heard by the presbyters does not change the fact that the Apostles

and other holders of the Office

possessed the authority to appoint men to the Office and to certain

congregations.20

Lhe is careful to distinguish his position on ordination from the

papists. Where as the papists teach

that ordination is a consecration whereby the one elected receives

the extraordinary gifts necessary for

the sacred performance of the office, Lhe speaks of ordination as

a bestowal of the office itself and still less solemn appointment to an office already bestowed.21 At the same time, he still maintains that both office and grace of office meet

in ordination. In other words, he

believed that while the candidate has already been called, the

ordination, and specifically the

ordination prayer, so far as it is heard by God, is effective in

bestowing the office to the

candidate.22

At this point, a summary of Walthers position on

20

Lhe, 71-74 21

Ibid, 75 22

Ibid, 76

the call and ordination will result in

a better understanding of the issues, and thus an idea of what to look out

for in Krauths writings. In his Kirche und Amt, Walther maintains that the

congregation or church of Christ

alone can entrust the Office of the Ministry. His rationale is that the

congregation immediately has the

power of the keys, citing Matthew 18:15-20 and 1 Peter 2:5-10. Since

the Church is a priesthood, and

Walthers understanding of Matthew 18 was that the keys were

given to the whole Church, the call

therefore strictly comes through the congregation. Walther, however,

clarifies that if preachers, who are

included in the assembly, are excluded in calling a pastor, then it

is not a legitimate call, since it is issued by individuals rather than

the whole multitude. In his,

Overview of C. F. W. Walthers The Right Form of a Lutheran Local Congregation, Pastor Timothy Teuscher (2011) demonstrates that Walther

completely opposed the

congregation acting independently of the whole Church and other

ministers.23

Walther also appeals to

23

...but the congregation should not trust its own judgment, but should use the holy office of the

22

the Apology and to the Smalcald

Articles, which stress the right of the churches to call and ordain. He

also appeals to the Council of

Nicaea, which determined that every church should choose a

bishop by itself in the presence of

one or more bishops who were living in the neighborhood.24 This also goes along with his position

that the pastor enjoys unconditional obedience from the congregation

only in respect to the Word of

God.25

This is something which both Walther and Lhe agreed on in

contrast to Grabau, as mentioned

previously. Concerning ordination,

Walther states that it is not divinely

instituted, but no more than a solemn declaration of the call. Like

Lhe, he also discusses the term

, which is used in ministry as a gift of God also in order to get sound

advice in matters pertaining to the call process. For that reason the congregation should invite a faithful

and insightful pastor to its meetings and tell him:

We want you to lead us in prayer and to instruct us as to how we should proceed in this sacred task. . . From Walthers 1863 Synod Convention essay; quoted by:

Teuscher, Timothy. "Overview of C. F. W. Walthers The Right Form of a Lutheran Local Congregation. Lutheran Theological Review. XXIII. 2011. Print. 24

Walther, C. F. W., and J. T. Mueller. Church and

Ministry (Kirche und Amt). Translated from 3rd

Edition. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing

House, 1987. 219-21. Print. 25

Ibid 303

Acts 14:23. Walther argues that

since the term is used of election by the voice and vote of the

congregation, appealing to 2 Corinthians 8:19,

26 we can

therefore maintain that the Apostles

did not take away from the

congregations their right to call and elect pastors.

27 Lhe argues that

the term is best translated as elect through the voters of others,28 and he seems to interpret 2 Corinthians

8:19 in light of Acts 14:23.

Walther, however, seems to interpret Acts 14:23 in light of 2

Corinthians 8:19 accompanied with

his understanding of

. Now, in order to see how

Krauth fits into this discussion, a layout of his theological

environment will serve well.

Part II: The American

Lutherans and Krauths Situation In his introduction to

Concordia Publishing Houses 2007 printing of Charles Porterfield

Krauths The Conservative

26

What is more, he was chosen by the churches to accompany us as we carry the offering, which we

administer in order to honor the Lord imself and to

show our eagerness to help. 27

Walther. Kirche und Amt, 229-30 28

Lhe, 74 The emphasis is Lhes

23

Reformation and Its Theology, Dr. Lawrence R. Rast Jr. cites an American Lutheran of the

nineteenth century commenting on

a German Lutheran immigrant. The American was shocked by the

Orthodoxy of the German. He was

taken back by the mans insistence on an unconditional subscription to

the unaltered Augsburg Confession,

his belief in baptismal regeneration and the real presence of the body

and blood of Christ in the Lords Supper, and his recommendation of private confession and absolution.

29

From the point of view to someone

raised as an Orthodox Lutheran, the idea of a Lutheran who does not

believe in baptismal regeneration or

the real presence in the Lords Supper makes little to no sense at

all. Therefore, the begging questing is this: How did American

Lutheranism get to this point?

There are many factors for how Lutherans strayed from such

articles of faith. English deism was

already a common enemy for both the Lutherans and the Reformed.

John Christopher Kunze,

instrumental in the forming of the New York Ministerium, adopted a 29

Krauth, Charles Porterfield, introduction by

Lawrence Rast. The Conservative Reformation and

Its Theology: Introduction. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2007. Xvii - xviii. Print.

unionist relationship with the

Reformed. In his Hymn and Prayer Book of 1795, he claimed that the

times of divisions were over. By

the time the eighteenth century came to an end, Lutheran pastors

were already instructing Reformed

families, using the Heidelberg Catechism.

30

The American Lutherans

crossed through a serious identity crisis during the early parts of the

nineteenth century. One main

concern was the transition from German to English. Rev. J. H. C.

Helmuth (1745-1825), a pastor in

the Pennsylvania Ministerium, feared that a departure from the

German language would mean a

departure from the religious language. After all, there were

reports from missionaries in Virginia who noticed that those

who left the German language did

indeed leave behind a religious life. Nevertheless, the English language

was the inevitable transition. By

1807, the New York Ministerium took on English as its official

language, and although German

was retained in the Pennsylvania

30

Nelson, E. Clifford; Theodore G. Tappert; H.

George Anderson; August R. Suelflow; Eugene l.

Fevold; Fred W. Meuser. The Lutherans in

North America. Revised. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. 84, 90-91. Print.

24

Ministerium, their missionaries

preached in English when they went to the Virginias and Ohio.

Helmuth along with others, fearing

that the loss of German would mean extreme detriment for the

Church, identified with the German

speaking Reformed, and joint publications and hymnals were

published between the Lutherans

and Reformed.31

On October 22, 1820, efforts

for a General Synod began. The

goal of this synod was meant as an advisory to the various

ministeriums and synods in the

United States. David A. Gustafson (1993) points out that the word

General indicated no doctrinal standard; however, even with that standard lacking, there were still

some who feared the General Synod was too Lutheran. At the

same time, others, such as the

Lutherans in Tennessee, did not support the new Synod due to its

Confessional laxity.

Samuel Simon Schmucker was the most instrumental in the

formation of the General Synod and

its confessional decline. He emphasized the difference between

fundamental and

31

Ibid 95-95

nonfundamental doctrines;32 he took a Zwinglian position on the Sacraments; he had a typical

Protestant anti-Catholic attitude,

abhorring everything Catholic including the Sacraments.

Schmuckers goal, proving to be a near success, was to mold American Lutheranism into a

united Protestantism in America.

In his Elements of Popular Theology, Schmucker presented a

systematic theology based on the

Augsburg Confession. In this work, he omitted the negative theses

which condemned the Anabaptists

and others for various errors. His obscure distinction between

fundamental and nonfundamental

doctrines gave many American

32

Lutheran dogmatician Nicholas Hunnius (1585-

1643) distinguished between fundamental (primary

and secondary) and nonfundamental articles of faith. He did not categorize different doctrines;

rather, articles of faith (or articles of doctrine as he

personally preferred to call them) are parts of the whole body of doctrine (corpus doctrinae), and he

understood doctrine as the doctrine of the Gospel

(doctrina evangelii). Robert Preus comments: Unfortunately the distinction between primary fundamental,

secondary fundamental, and nonfundamental

articles of faith which was necessarily but also somewhat arbitrarily worked out tended, regrettably and unintentionally, to obscure the unity

of the articles of faith and to conjure up the spectre of some sort of complex machine rather than a

grand and inspiring symphony of choir. Preus, Robert. The Theology of Post-Reformation

Lutheranism. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970. I: 145, 147. Print.

25

Lutherans the ability to reject such

articles of faith as Baptismal regeneration and the real presence

while still calling themselves

Lutherans, although Schmucker himself defended the practice of

baptizing infants. However, this

was only in so far as it is a duty for the sake of obedience to Christs command to baptize all nations. He

maintained that baptism is only symbolic of the process of spiritual

purification. Schmucker was blunt

in his opinion that a fundamental doctrine must be reasonable, and

that any revelation must stand the

test of reason.33

With the arrival of Lutherans

from Germany and Scandinavia,

there was more circulation of Lutheran literature. From this,

more Lutheran pastors read more Lutheran theology. When a

Lutheran reads more Lutheran

theology, he is more likely to become more Lutheran. This is

exactly what happened, and this

Confessional Lutheran shift brought with it momentum within

the General Synod.34

F. C. D.

Wyneken (1810-76) was a voice within Confessional Lutheranism. 33

Gustafson, David A. Lutherans in Crisis: The

Question of Identity in the American Republic.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. 56-65. Print. 34

Ibid 121

He had sought and received support

from Lhe and his Nothilfer in his efforts to bring Confessional

Lutheran pastors to the United

States.35

At the General Synods 1845 convention, Wyneken spoke

out, and as a result, the convention

adopted a resolution which would identify the doctrine and practice of

the American Lutheran Church.

However, his protest fell futile, since the committee appointed for

this task was completely made up

of American Lutheran sympathizers. These included

Samuel Schmucker and Benjamin

Kurtz. Kurtz was a major opponent of Confessional Lutheranism. He

had earlier in his life come close to

joining the Methodists or the Presbyterians due to his denial of

the benefits of the Sacraments; however, his colleagues urged him

to stay in the Lutheran Church

since these were only minor issues. He insisted on his own

interpretation of the Augsburg

Confession, and he would also tell his catechumens that he did not

accept what Luther wrote about the

Sacraments in his Catechism.36

The Melanchthon Synod, which

35

Ibid 109-10 36

Bente, F. American Lutheranism. II. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1919. 137-39. Print.

26

was under Kurtzs influence, although accepting the fundamental doctrines in the Augsburg Confession, rejected

private Confession and Absolution, Baptismal regeneration, and the

real presence of Christs body and blood in His Supper. This synod was brought into the General Synod

in 1857.37

As was expected from the 1845 committee, the report was

tabled, but the fact that there was

any kind of movement proved that a change was coming.

The development of Charles

Porterfield Krauths theology must start with his father Charles Philip

Krauth, a professor and colleague

of Schmucker at Gettysburg Seminary. He gave the sermon at

the opening service of the convention. In this sermon, he

pointed out the lack of concrete

doctrine and practice of the General Synod.

38 Charles Philip had given

his son, the young Charles

Porterfield, a copy of Martin Chemnitzs Loci. From his early years in the ministry in the 1840s,

under his fathers encouragement, Charles Porterfield Krauth studied

historical Lutheran theology,

37

Ibid 119-20 38

Gustafson, 122

including the Lutheran

Confessions.39

In 1855, the General Synod

came up with their Definite

Platform, in which they pointed out five alleged errors in the Augsburg

Confession. They were as follows:

The approval of the ceremony of the mass, private confession and

absolution, denial of divine

obligation to the Sabbath, baptismal regeneration, and the real presence

of Christs body and blood in His Supper.

40 Even with Krauths

growth in Confessional

Lutheranism, he still had his doubts

about the Augsburg Confession as late as 1864.

41 Nevertheless, he

developed early on a desire for

unity in doctrine. After the East Pennsylvania Synod reacted against

the Platform in 1855, Krauth wrote his Pittsburgh Declaration in 1856

in which he expressed his desire for

unity in confession, with a desire not to alter in any way the

Augsburg Confession.42

By 1865, Krauth realized that unity with the General Synod was

impossible if they could not agree

on doctrine and practice. In the

39

Rast, xv 40

Gustafson, 127-27 41

Bente, 115 This was specifically on Article 11:

Concerning Confession and Absolution 42

Gustafson, 129, 148-49

27

Lutheran Missionary, he published

an article entitled The Aimless Battle, in which he retracted his former crudities and inconsistencies. He addressed the issue of fundamental doctrine. He

took the position that the articles in

the Augsburg Confession are all articles of faith, and that all articles

of faith are in fact fundamental

doctrines.43

From this point, Krauth would continue to grow in

his Orthodoxy.

After the 1864 resignation of Schmucker from the Gettysburg

Seminary, the 1865 retraction of

Krauth, and the 1866 death of Kurtz, the new General Council, a

break from the General Synod,

formed. They organized in Pennsylvania in 1866, and they met

at their first convention in Fort Wayne, IN on November 20,

1867.44

From this split, Krauth

would become more engaged with Confessional Lutherans in the

Midwest.

Part III: Krauth and Walther:

The Ministry and Theology In an article entitled Church Polity, published in 1884 (a year after his death) in the Lutheran

43

Ibid 154-55 44

Ibid 158-60

Church Review, Krauth writes:

This office is none other than a public ministry

committed to one person

by the whole Congregation who are all

equally priests.45

Krauth certainly believed that a pastor is elected by the

congregation. He even defines the

Christian congregation in the second article of his Thetical Statement on the Doctrine of the

Ministry (1875). In this article, he explains that the congregation is in

a specific location in which the

congregation gathers around the Word and the Sacraments. In this

same article, he distinguishes

between the Apostolate and the rest of the holders of the Office.

Though they hold the same Office which Christ instituted, the

Apostles held various unique

extraordinary gifts with superior authority.

46 There was no dispute

on this topic among Walther, Lhe,

and Grabau; however, in saying that they hold the same office,

45

Krauth, Charles Porterfield. "The Public Ministry

of the Gospel: The Testimony of Krauth, Walther, Kaehler, and Jacobs." Lutheran Theology Web

Site. David J. Webber, n.d. Web. 14 Apr 2011.

. 46

Krauth, Thetical Statements

28

Krauth maintains that the specific ministries are but distributions of the Apostolate in its ordinary and

permanent functions.47 From this, although he maintains that the call comes through the congregation,

Krauth writes that though there is

no personal Apostolic succession, there still is a succession of

ministers in the Church.

Ministers, Krauth says, come from ministers.48 Krauth evidently showed the

influence which Chemnitz had on him when he discussed the doctrine

of the Office of the Ministry.49

For

example, in his Enchiridion, Chemnitz writes:

For a mediate call God

ordinarily does not use the ministry of angels, but the

ministry of His church, which is a royal

priesthood. 1 Ptr 2:9 For

to it as to His spouse has Christ entrusted the keys

of the kingdom. Mt 18:18.

Likewise He entrusted the Word and the Sacraments.

Ro 3:2; 9:4. And briefly,

all things are of the

47

Krauth, Church Polity 48

Krauth, Thetical Statements 49

Bachmann E. Walther, Schaff, and Krauth on

Luther. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968. 205. Print

church, both the ministry

and the ministers. Eph 4:12; Co 3:21-22.

50

Here, Chemnitz clearly says

that God calls through the Church consisting of the royal priesthood.

At the same time, Chemnitz affirms

the biblical examples of mediate calls by which Timothy was called

through Paul and the presbytery,

and he had a mandate also to appoint other ministers in the

Church.51

Chemnitz, like Krauth,

was not bothered by the New Testament practice of the presbyters

appointing ministers. They both

still used the same rationale as Walther that since the keys belong

to the whole Church (Matthew

18:18), the call therefore comes through the Church. By Church,

Chemnitz included three estates: Domestic, Civil, and Ecclesiastical.

Concerning the call, Krauth

most clearly gives his position in his Conservative Reformation and

Its Theology. After giving a brief

history on the practice of the Lutheran churches in Europe, he

writes:

50

Chemnitz, Martin, translated by Luther Poellot. Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion.

Translated from the German Edition. St. Louis:

Concordia Publishing House, (1593) 1981. 32-33.

Print. 51

Ibid

29

The right to choose a pastor

belongs to the people, who may exercise it by direct

vote, or delegate it to their

representatives. So according to Krauth,

ministers come from ministers, yet

the people have the right to choose a pastor. These two points come

together in harmony when taking

into account the three estates. According to Chemnitz, the right to

call ministers does not exclusively

belong to the ministry (Ecclesiastical); nor does it belong

only to the people (Domestic).

Chemnitz also explains that in so far as a civil magistrate is a

Christian, he has the right to

participate in the calling of ministers. The people should not

call without approval of the ministers, and the ministers should

not undermine the right of the

people to choose ministers.52

Chemnitz pointed out that no

patron ever posses the right to

appoint any minister he wishes to a parish without the judgment and consent of the church of that

place. Again he writes: ...that old canon is observed: Let no one be

given to the unwilling.53

52

Ibid, 33-35 53

Ibid, 35

Krauth points out that the ministry is not an order, but it is a divinely appointed office. He says that a hierarchical organization is

unchristian, but he contrasts it with a gradation of bishops, superintendents, or provosts. This

he says may be observed; however, only by human right.

54

A misconception is sometimes

held of Lhe that he insisted on a hierarchical system or at least

insisted on what Krauth described

as gradation. This is not true. Lhe believed that one could have the

democratic or Episcopal system, so

long as the Office is understood. As long as the call to the Office

comes from the Office, that is, so

long as a man cannot enter into the Office without ordination

55, Lhe

approved of a democratic Church Polity. That is not saying, however,

that he would prefer it.56

Although Krauths General Council was meant as a

Confessional movement (and it was

definitely a movement from the General Synod), the Council still

54

Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its

Theology, 152-53 55

These two positions of Lhe go together: 1) his position that ordination effectively bestows the

Office on the candidate and 2) his position that the

Office cannot be bestowed by anyone not in the

Office. 56

Winger 129

30

lacked the integrity of the other

Confessional synods. When the Iowa Synod, for example, asked for

clarity from the General Council on

Church fellowship and Secret Societies, pointing to the Augsburg

Confessions condemnation of church fellowship with those who are not Lutheran, the Council

responded:

Resolved, that the General Council is not prepared to

endorse the declaration of

the Synod of Iowa, as a correct logical deduction

and application of the

negative part of our Confessional Books57

Although this response proves to be Confessionaly lax, Krauths understanding of the Office of the Ministry, along with every other

article of faith, went right along

with his desire for the unity of the Church. He continued to

demonstrate this Confessional

yearning. Eight years later, the General Council met at Galesburg.

In 1872, Krauth had drafted a rule

at Akron Ohio, and the council had accepted it. It became known as

57

Wolf, Richard C. Documents of Lutheran Unity in

America. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1966. 160-61Print

the Galesburg rule, and it reads as

follows: The rule is this: Lutheran

pulpits are for Lutheran

ministers only; Lutheran altars are for Lutheran

communicants only. The

exception to the rule belongs in the sphere of

privilege and not of right.

The determination of the exceptions is to be made

in consonance with these

principles by the conscientious judgment of

pastors, as cases arise.

Two years later, Krauth explained the rule in a set of theses.

In it, he gave examples of

exceptions, such as death bed emergencies, extreme peril of

persecution, imprisonment, and other similar situations. He states

that the exception does not allow

for interdenominational exchange of pulpits or altars.

58

Krauths life was certainly a journey, as it was a journey for Confessional Lutheranism in

America. In 1872, the Missouri

Synod, along with other Confessional synods, started the

Synodical Conference. In the early

1880s, Walther and Missouri 58

Ibid 171-76

31

became involved in a dispute

concerning election. While Missouri affirmed that Gods election is not a mere foresight, but

rather actually effects faith, the Ohio synod stated that while

election is the cause of our

salvation, God elects in view of Christs merit apprehended by faith, or in view of faith (intuitu fidei).

59

Bachmann (1968) points out that with Walthers struggle over the doctrine of election along with

Krauths soul-searching debate over pulpit and altar fellowship and

his Galesburg Rule, these two

decision-makers would determine the character of Lutheranism.60

Conclusion According to Bachmann

(1968), Krauth and Walther had a friendly relationship; however, their

correspondence was minimal.

Krauth initiated it by sending Walther one of his sermons in

1858.61

With the extent of my

research, I cannot conclude that Walther had any significant

influence on Krauth concerning

Church and Ministry except for when it comes to the practice of the

59

Ibid 199-203 60

Bachmann, 210 61

Ibid 203

Church. Bente (1919) quotes

Krauth, who in 1876, wrote: I have been saddened

beyond expression by the

bitterness displayed towards the Missourians.

So far as they have been

our benefactors, and although I know they have

misunderstood some of

us, that was perhaps inevitable. They are men

of God, and their work

has been of inestimable value.

62

The encouragement to flee

unionism gives a practical insight into the Ecclesiastical influence

Krauth enjoyed from Walther and

the Missouri Synod. The issue was Unionism, and they both fought

against it. Walther and Krauth both had

a common Lutheran heritage; that

is, they both cherished Lutheran Orthodoxy. Krauth was born and

raised in the United States while

Walther was a German immigrant, but Krauth came to realize that he

himself was a foreigner on this

continent. Both men found their home in the pure teaching of

Scripture, devoting and submitting

themselves to the Word of God. 62

Bente, 185

32

Their warfare on this earth is over,

but our warfare goes on. We may make one more

observation concerning these two

men. Walther and Krauth would never officially end up publicly

declaring pulpit and altar

fellowship, but they still acknowledged each other. They

acknowledged the fight which was

at hand, yet they did not jump too hastily into a false union. As Bente

(1919) points out, the General

Council refused to ever take a definite stand.

63 The Missouri

Synod today can learn from these

past events and from the way her fathers dealt with heterodox church

bodies. Instead of declaring

fellowship with congregations within the Lutheran World

Federation, she would do well rather to encourage those fighting

for the truth, and pray that through

Christian support and teaching, God would grant them wisdom and

courage to flee from such

heterodoxy.

Andrew Preus is in his final

academic year (delayed vicarage) at CLTS, St. Catharines, ON.

63

Ibid 224

33

The Authority of Scripture

Charismatic Movement vs Lutheran Theology

To Lutheran Orthodoxy, the

authority of Scripture is defined as

being the property by which it demands faith and obedience to all

its declarations, apart from man and

the Church (Preus, The Insp. Of Scrip., 88). Thus, authority is from

God alone, regardless of what man

may think about it. There are many, such as the

Charismatics, who profess to accept

the authority of Scripture, yet in reality accept human reason and

experience as the ultimate judge. Since belief in the Word of Christ is

a primary, fundamental doctrine

(Pieper I, 84), denying the authority of Scripture leads to perdition when

the Word of the Gospel is no longer

believed. The importance of this doctrine and the fact that many do

not necessarily even realize what

their beliefs mean is the reason for this brief summary of the topic.

The Charismatics base their

views almost exclusively on the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the

Apostles (Hollenweger, 336). The

movement started in 1900 as a

supposed New Pentecost or revival, with some apparently

believing that they were simply

carrying on what the apostles were doing in Acts. They seek the Holy

Spirit for the purpose of speaking in

tongues and healing, but seekers do not seek the Holy Spirit from

Scripture but from the laying on of

hands and prayer. A common belief among the movement is the

understanding that receiving the Holy Spirit provides spiritual gifts,

with an initial evidence of speaking

in tongues (Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, 3).

A significant difficulty in

studying any Charismatic doctrine, and in this case their doctrine on

the authority of Scripture, is their

tradition of not subscribing to confessions or creeds but rather on

oral tradition and the experiential witness (Spittler, 59). The result is a very fragmented doctrine, lacking

34

unity across the many

denominations within the overall Charismatic movement and with

much doctrine left up to individual

experience to determine. A perusal through

Charismatic literature will show

that most of the movements denominations claim to believe that

the Bible is the inspired word of

God and that the content is infallible divine revelation

(Hollenweger, 291, Nichol, 5,

Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada 1, the FourSquare Church, Elim

Fellowship, etc.). Some

Pentecostal groups such as the Associated Brotherhood of

Christians, however, openly discard

the Old Testament and accept the New Testament only as a guide

pertaining to conduct and doctrine. Similarly, the Full Salvation Union

do not believe the Bible itself to be

an inspired book, but since they believe the writers were inspired,

they view the Bible to be a good

guide in some areas but that it should never compete with Gods direct guidance over an individual,

which is often entirely apart from any written statement of Scripture

(Hollenwegger, 298).

It can also be seen that the movement constantly changes and

displays wide differences between

one country and another, and one group and another (Hollenwegger,

xviii). Some Pentecostals are

hyper-Calvinists; some are strong Arminians. Some reject the Trinity

as a pagan superstition. Some

believe in baptismal regeneration; others deny it (Hollenwegger, xix),

deeming the experience of the

individual as the key which predominates over all other

principles of interpretation. Thus,

they claim that no specific expression of Pentecostal faith can

be put forward as the interpretation

of the Bible (Hollenwegger, xix). The problem with the

Pentecostals fundamentalist approach to the Bible comes to light when it comes to have attached to it attributes of perfection and of sublime

superiority to human feelings and

to human judgment (Hollenweger, 299). They also view the fundamentalist view as being

unthinking and uncritical and thus damaging and dangerous (Hollenweger, 300). It becomes readily apparent that they do not hold Scripture as the ultimate

authority in reality at all, but rather

their own personal experiences and reason. Everything is based on

35

feeling, sentiment and relative truth

(Abell, 17). The Charismatic movement is

seen by its proponents as people

wanting to be where the excitement is, away from dead formalism (Quebedeaux, 35). The total focus

is, as they admit, not on the correspondence of the words [of

Scripture], but rather on the interior

correspondence of sentiments (Hollenwegger, xvii). Their pursuit

of speaking in tongues shows their

self-focus and how they are putting their own ego and experience first.,

pursuing the lesser gifts since they

are showy and build their egos, instead of seeking what is the best

for the body of Christ and not

seeking their own as St. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to do (1

Cor. 12:27-31). George Gardiner writes of the

5 common backgrounds of

Pentecostals, all sharing one common denominator: they are all

in search of experiences (51). One

well-known leader in the charismatic movement, while

addressing such a group of

experience-seekers, read a passage of Scripture then closed his Bible

and said, We are not going to agree on the interpretation of this Scripture, so let me tell you about

my experience, then we will have

something solid (Gardiner, 51). Look through Pentecostal

books and you will immediately see

the focus is on experiential stories. The experience of a certain person,

the Pentecostal movement in

Appalachia, the Charismatics in the Near East, in Africa, in Balto-

Slavic countries, etc. It is based on

witness accounts of its people. This of course leads to

disagreement since people have

different experiences, and thus they also disagree in their theology.

Again and again you hear that the

Charismatic movement is a response to dead formalism in the conventional or traditional churches. It seems the response is from people, unsatisfied with their

relationship with God and blaming it on their traditional churches,

leaving to seek a more exciting

church experience. Often it results in continually pushed

experiential limits, until eventually

they may even join those Charismatics they consider to be

extreme in their views right now

who are handling snakes and drinking poison among other

extremes. When experience is your

authority, there is nothing stopping the pursuit of greater experiential

36

extremes.

However, Gods design is from truth to experience not from

experience to truth. Experiences

are often contradictory and can be emotionally powerful and thus are deceptive (Gardiner, 52). The

apostle Peter writes about his experience as an eyewitness to the

transfiguration, himself hearing

God the Fathers voice from heaven, yet he writes that we have

something more sure, the prophetic

word! (2 Peter 1:19). When you put experience first, you take

Biblical texts out of context

(Gardiner, 53), attempting to fit the Bible into your experience.

The result of this elevation of the

individual and his experience as a law to himself results in relative

truth as opposed to the real Truth. Since one of the essential elements

of religion (and of all truth) is

unchangeableness and finality, in order to keep any truth at all,

religion cannot smack of

individualism and experientialism, nor of temperamental trust. Rather,

it must be a religion of authority

(Schmauk, vii). Without faith in Truth above the grasp of reason, it

is impossible to ground authority

(Schmauk, viii). Something such as human reason and experience,

which is an internal authority and

which carries its justification in itself, cannot be the Truth. It is relative, conditioned, and lacks

finality. The only Truth which carries its justification in itself is

the Truth which is grasped by faith

the Truth of God, the validity of which is unaffected by human

reasons ability or lack thereof to apprehend it. Final authority comes from God, through His Word, not

from human reason (Schmauk,

viii). Since the Charismatics focus

is experience, they also end up

necessarily believing in direct revelation outside of Scripture

whether they admit to it or not. An

example is the songwriters Bill and Gloria Gaither. When asked about

the theology of one of their songs, the response was that they are not

theologians. The song came to

them quickly and they dont care to discuss the theology of it. In fact,

they feel that to dissect the song

would be tampering with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who

inspired the song (MacArthur, 15)!

When you hold personal experiences to be inspired by the

Holy Spirit, you necessarily place

your experiences above the authority of Scripture.

37

Scripture is the only norm of

Christian doctrine, the means by which we learn to know God and

His will. Revealed, supernatural

theology is to be drawn only from the revealed and written Word of

God (Preus, The Insp. Of Scrip., 1)

Robert Preus explains: This source [The

Scriptures] of theology is

more sure and certain than heaven and earth. All

other knowledge must be

derived from empirical evidence, from the light of

nature and experience.

With the completion of the canon immediate revelation ceased

(Preus, The Insp. Of Scrip., 2). All

the counsel of God is set forth in Scripture and there is no need for

more revelation. Belief in additional revelation necessitates

belief in the insufficiency of

Scripture. Moreover, the origin of all unwritten material is uncertain

(Preus, The Insp. Of Scrip., 6).

Human reason and experience are ignorant in themselves of Gods revelation and can offer no

information about the way of salvation, and thus they cannot

serve as sources of faith (Preus, The

Insp. Of Scrip., 9). As Quenstedt and other Lutheran theologians

explain, this does not mean that we

should do away with reason altogether. Used passively, it is

necessary for gaining information.

It is a means, since only through reason can a man understand. But

reason as a source (principium

quod) has no place in theological discipline (Preus, The Insp. Of

Scrip. 9). A ratio ministerialis is

never condemned, in fact it is necessary for understanding, while

a ratio magisterialis, which sets

itself above the Word of God, is to be condemned (Preus, The Insp. Of

Scrip., 10). Natural reason cannot

hope to have a knowledge of supernatural revelation, so it cannot

sit in judgment in spiritual matters

(1 Cor. 2:14, Rom 8:7). Above we have discussed the

traditions of the Charismatics as far as their authority of Scripture is

concerned. However, they fear the

word tradition, often having left traditional denominations, they consider themselves more as

radicals. They feel traditions thwart the free movement of the Holy Spirit (Spittler, 60). Of course you cannot actually get away from traditions. In fact the

Pentecostals subscription to oral tradition is also a tradition. When their tradition is based on what they

38

call personal witness, or personal experiences of the witnessing person (Spittler, 62), one then starts

to speak of the Pentecostal

experience (Spittler, 65). There are also those

Charismatics who realize that both

experience and reason cannot be the ultimate authority. They view

the Bible as having a special authority (Kerr, 7) but the central thrust of revelation is still that of an

experience (Kerr, 63). The Bible is

then held not as the ultimate source of Gods revelation, but merely as a witness to additional revelation

being given today (MacArthur, 16). They feel no experience has to

stand the test of Scripture, but

rather that the Bible needs to fit their experience (MacArthur, 58)

no matter how much the words need to be twisted and

misconstrued. Thus you hear of

Pentecostal witness such as the personal experience of not only

seeing God, but having a

photograph of Him, as Dudley Danielson claims to have done

(MacArthur, 59). You too can have

a genuine photo of God for $9.95 and be blessed through it. Nor are

such witness experiences rare, they are what compose the tradition of the Pentecostal movement.

When personal experience is your

ultimate authority, there is no absolute truth, truth becomes

relative. Thus you end up with the

Todd Bentleys of the world who say the gift of faith came upon them and told them to punch and kick people in order to heal them. Other Pentecostals may want to

distance themselves from him but

they dont have a leg to stand on since they believe, like Bentley

does, that these experiences are

direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, above Scripture and not

subject to its authority.

The key is to realize that all experiences are human opinion and

not necessarily from the Holy

Spirit, and that Scripture is the only true authority. Countless Biblical

passages clearly point out the fact that Scripture is the very Word of

God, thus having His authority,

such as: John 10:35, 2 Tim. 3:16 17, 1 Pet. 1:10 12, Eph. 2:20. St. Paul also writes in 1 Cor. 14:37ff

If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him

acknowledge the things that I write

unto you to be the commandments of the Lord. Clearly, the written Word of God is the authority, and

personal experiences need to be viewed in the light of Scripture.

39

We must also keep in mind that this

final authority, if grasped at all, is grasped only by faith (Schmauk,

ix).

John Nieminen is in his second

academic year at CLTS, St.

Catharines, ON.

Bibliography

Abell, Troy D. Better Felt Than

Said: the Holiness-Pentecostal

Experience in Southern Appalachia. Waco, TX:

Markham Press, 1982.

Dayton, Donald W. Theological Roots of Pentecostalism.

Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow

Press, 1987. Elim Fellowship. Elim Fellowship

Statement of Faith, 2010. 2 October 2010

.

Foursquare Church. Ed. Aimee S.

McPherson. 2 October 2010

. Gardiner, George E. The

Corinthian Catastrophe.

Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1974.

Hollenweger, Walter J. The

Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the Churches.

Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972.

Jungkuntz, Theodore J. Occasional Papers: Charismatic

Movement. Iowa, 1992.

MacArthur, John F. The Charismatics. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan, 1978.

Nichol, John Thomas. Pentecostalism. New York:

Harper & Row, 1966.

Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, Article 5 of the General

Constitution and By-Laws

Adopted by General Conference, 1994. 2 October,

2010

.

Pieper, Francis. Christian

Dogmatics, Volume I. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1950.

Pieper, Francis. Christian

Dogmatics, Volume III. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1953.

Poloma, Margaret. The

Charismatic Movement: Is There a New Pentecost?

Boston: G.K. Hall, 1982.

Quebedeaux, Richard. The New Charismatics II: How a

40

Christian Renewal Movement

Became Part of the American Religious Mainstream. San

Francisco: Harper, 1983.

Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome. St. Louis, MO:

Concordia Academic Press,

Concordia Publishing House, 1997.

- - -, The Inspiration of Scripture: A

Study of the Theology of the 17

th-Century Lutheran

Dogmaticians. St. Louis,

MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1957.

Schmauk, Theodore E. The

Confessional Principle and the Confessions of the

Lutheran Church.

Philadelphia: General Council

Press, 1911.

Spittler, Russell P. Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker

Book House, 1976. Wagner, C. Peter. Look Out! The

Pentecostals are Coming.

Carol Stream, IL: Creation House, 1973.

41

Call For Manuscripts

Students from the following seminaries are welcome to submit articles:

Concordia in St. Lou