Propter Christum I, 1 by Propter Christum

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 propterchristum@gmail.com. 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

Propter Christum I, 1 3

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

Propter Christum I, 1 4

HYMN SECTION λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ἐν ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς… Ephesians 5:19

Oh Jesus When You Came to Save Us Text: Andrew Preus Tune: Wer weiss, wie nahe, Christian Möck (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 God‟s 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!

Propter Christum I, 1 5

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 Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγώ, ἀκούσας τὴν καθ' ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, On account of this I myself, having heard your faith in the Lord Jesus and love, the one toward all the saints, κἀγώ. - “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 Διὰ τοῦτο referring to what has been said from verses 314: “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 Paul‟s 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,

Propter Christum I, 1 6

Διὰ τοῦτο 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, Διὰ τοῦτο serves as an explanatory clause for something that might have been alluded previously in a non explicit way, and after Διὰ τοῦτο we find something that serves as an explanatory clause introduced by ὅτι but more often ἵνα which introduces a clause of purpose. It is difficult to draw a clear line, and perhaps the attempt to divide the Διὰ τοῦτο 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 ἵνα 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 杜 ain reason・to which Διὰ τοῦτο points out is still before very explicitly stated: 土 ou were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit・...)吐 or this reason・(・的 pray that He continue to come to you.・ καθ' ὑμᾶς πίστιν – This construction seems uncommon. The only similar construction I could find in the NT was in Col. 1.4ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν – Though unusual, it is another use of the preposition κατὰ; 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 κατὰ is found in Romans 1.15: οὕτως τὸ κατ' ἐμὲ πρόθυμον καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελίσασθαι – “Thus, the willingness of me...” Acts 18.15 is the other reference for this usage. πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ – It does not appear as normal usage to have “faith in Jesus” written that way in

Propter Christum I, 1 7

Greek. Usually the object of faith is in the Genitive case (Mk 11.22, Rev 14.12, James 2.1) or with the preposition εἰς (Acts 20.21). Whenever the preposition ἐν 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. τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους 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 πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους (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 πίστιν 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 οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου I do not cease giving thanks on your behalf, making remembrance when at my prayers ἐπὶ. - I translated as referring to time, “while”, “at the time of”

17 ἵνα ὁ θεὸς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης, δώῃ ὑμῖν πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως ἐν ἐπιγνώσει αὐτοῦ 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;

Propter Christum I, 1 8

・ 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. πνεῦμα σοφίας – 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 πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας [ὑμῶν] εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς τίς ἐστιν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς κλήσεως αὐτοῦ, τίς ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τῆς κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς

Propter Christum I, 1 9

ἁγίοις 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, εἰς τὸ 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 cliché 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

Propter Christum I, 1 10

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 τί τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς τοὺς πιστεύοντας κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ κράτους τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ 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 ἣν ἐνήργησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις which he worked in Christ when he raised Him from the dead and seated at His right hand in the

Propter Christum I, 1 11

heavenly places 21 ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι 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 καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ 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 ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου 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.

Propter Christum I, 1 12

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 15.117 “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

Propter Christum I, 1 13

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

Propter Christum I, 1 14

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 κἀγώ. led me to an interesting thought. If the Διὰ τοῦτο of verse 15 is understood as referring to what was mentioned on the previous pericope (3-14) so that κἀγώ. 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 (BenJoseph, 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

Propter Christum I, 1 15

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 (BenDavid, 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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

Propter Christum I, 1 16

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 Krauth‟s position on the Office of dispute with Johannes A. A. Grabau (1804-79), leader of the Buffalo Synod, which J. K. Wilhelm Löhe (1808-72) commented on almost a decade later. In giving his examination of the debate, Löhe sought to effect a resolution in doctrine and practice among Missouri and Buffalo . In the meantime, Charles Porterfield

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 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 Krauth‟s

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 Krauth‟s relationship with Walther on Church and Ministry, I must first give the background of Walther‟s debate with Grabau along with Löhe„s position. After this, I will present the situation among American Lutherans in the nineteenth century from which Krauth arose. Finally, I will demonstrate Krauth‟s theological development and his relationship with Walther. Part I: Walther, Grabau, and Löhe on Kirche und Amt The dispute between Missouri and Buffalo arose from Grabau„s 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.

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 Löhe. Löhe 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. <http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/grabauhirtenbrief .pdf>. 6 Walther, C. F. W. "Christian Cyclopedia." LCMS.ORG. LCMS, 2000. Web. 12 Apr 2011. <http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/ 02/display.asp?t1=a&word=ALTENBURGTHESE S>.

Confessional Lutherans in North America. In 1850, in his Zugabe (supplement), he responded to the debate occurring between Walther and Grabau. Löhe 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 Löhe 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. Löhe 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. Löhe held that ordination gives the power and authority for the Office of the 7

Winger. 107-31 ibid 118-20 9 ibid 120-21 8

Ministry, namely to baptize, teach, administer the Lord‟s Supper, and to Absolve sins.10 Löhe 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, Löhe addressed those things which were to remain open questions. Löhe 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). Löhe also addressed Grabau‟s opinion that if a layman celebrates the Lord‟s 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, Löhe argued that the question should remain open.13 Löhe agreed mostly with

Grabau. While the Missouri Synod maintained that the call comes from the congregation, Löhe 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, Löhe 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 Löhe points out that this act of appointment was not only reserved to the Apostles. By this, he disputes the argument that only the

122-25 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 11

Löhe, 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.

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 apostle…15 Löhe 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 Ibid The emphasis is Löhe‟s 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 15

Dealing with the first passage, Löhe explains that the congregation‟s 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 Löhe 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, Löhe, addresses the Greek word χειροτονήσαντες (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 Löhe 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

appointing the elders in the congregations. For Löhe, 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 Löhe 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, Löhe 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 Walther‟s position on

the call and ordination will result in a better understanding of the issues, and thus an idea of what to look out for in Krauth‟s 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 Walther‟s 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. Walther‟s „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

Löhe, 71-74 Ibid, 75 22 Ibid, 76 21

“...but the congregation should not trust its own judgment, but should use the holy office of the 23

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 Löhe 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 Löhe, he also discusses the term χειροτονήσαντες, 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 Walther‟s 1863 Synod Convention essay; quoted by: Teuscher, Timothy. "Overview of C. F. W. Walther‟s “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 Löhe 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 Krauth’s Situation In his introduction to Concordia Publishing House‟s 2007 printing of Charles Porterfield Krauth‟s “The Conservative “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 Löhe, 74 The emphasis is Löhe‟s 26

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 man‟s 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 Lord‟s 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 Lord‟s 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

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

Krauth, Charles Porterfield, introduction by Lawrence Rast. The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology: Introduction. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2007. Xvii - xviii. Print.

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.

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. Schmucker‟s 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 (15851643) 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.

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 Christ‟s 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.

He had sought and received support from Löhe and his Nothilfer in his efforts to bring Confessional Lutheran pastors to the United States.35 At the General Synod‟s 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

Gustafson, David A. Lutherans in Crisis: The Question of Identity in the American Republic. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. 56-65. Print. 34 Ibid 121

Ibid 109-10 Bente, F. American Lutheranism. II. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1919. 137-39. Print. 36

was under Kurtz‟s influence, although accepting the “fundamental doctrines” in the Augsburg Confession, rejected private Confession and Absolution, Baptismal regeneration, and the real presence of Christ‟s 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 Krauth‟s 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 Chemnitz‟s Loci. From his early years in the ministry in the 1840s, under his father‟s encouragement, Charles Porterfield Krauth studied historical Lutheran theology, 37 38

Ibid 119-20 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 Christ‟s body and blood in His Supper.40 Even with Krauth‟s 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 Gustafson, 127-27 41 Bente, 115 This was specifically on Article 11: Concerning Confession and Absolution 42 Gustafson, 129, 148-49 40

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 44

Ibid 154-55 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, Löhe, 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. <http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/luthera ntheology.krauthwaltherkaehler.html>. 46 Krauth, Thetical Statements

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

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

Krauth, Church Polity 48 Krauth, Thetical Statements 49 Bachmann E. Walther, Schaff, and Krauth on Luther. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968. 205. Print

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

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 53

Ibid, 33-35 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 Löhe that he insisted on a hierarchical system or at least insisted on what Krauth described as gradation. This is not true. Löhe 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 ordination55, Löhe approved of a democratic Church Polity. That is not saying, however, that he would prefer it.56 Although Krauth‟s 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 Löhe 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

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 Confession’s 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 Books…57 Although this response proves to be Confessionaly lax, Krauth‟s 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. 16061Print

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 Krauth‟s 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

became involved in a dispute concerning election. While Missouri affirmed that God‟s 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 Christ‟s merit apprehended by faith, or in view of faith (intuitu fidei).59 Bachmann (1968) points out that with Walther‟s struggle over the doctrine of election along with Krauth‟s “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 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.

Bente, 185

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.

Ibid 224

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

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 movement‟s 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 God‟s 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

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 BaltoSlavic 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

extremes. However, God‟s 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 Father‟s 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 reason‟s ability or lack thereof to apprehend it. Final authority comes from God, through His Word, not from human reason (Schmauk, viii). Since the Charismatic‟s 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 don‟t 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.

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 God‟s 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

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 God‟s 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 Bentley‟s 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 don‟t 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.

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 <http://www.elimfellowship.o rg/statementoffaithabout.html >. Foursquare Church. Ed. Aimee S. McPherson. 2 October 2010 <http://www.foursquare.org/images /assets/Declaration_of_Faith.pdf>. 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 <http://www.paoc.org/upload/ files2/docs/Stmt%20of%20Fu ndamental%20and%20Essenti al%20Truths.pdf>. 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

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 17th-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.

Call For Manuscripts Students from the following seminaries are welcome to submit articles: Concordia in St. Louis, Concordia Lutheran in Edmonton, Concordia Theological in Fort Wayne, or Concordia Lutheran Theological in St. Catharines. These submissions can include editorials, articles, book reviews, or hymns. Please send your articles to the student editor of Propter Christum at propterchristum@gmail.com.