Our president has fallen at the hands of a murderer. The assassin belonged to the band of anarchists who here and in Europe desire to overturn standing state and civil orders by force.

What does God desire to teach us, the citizens of this country, through this shocking murder? The secular papers and also most of the church papers, which we have seen emphasize one point for the most part. Anarchy must be purged from our country.

This demand is justified. The anarchists are declared public enemies of all orders, which are necessary for common civil life. The anarchists should move freely in human society as little as open thieves and murderers. But that precisely among us in the United States anarchists, in spite of all existing good laws, still dare to move freely, is proof that we – we mean the majority of citizens – are not using the reason which men still possess in natural matters. Thus precisely Christians among the citizens have the duty to see to it that from now on through reasonable dealings, application of existing law and if necessary through new legislation, anarchists are rendered as innocuous as possible.

But we Christians, if we would not put ourselves on the same level as the blind world, should not simply be satisfied with these actions and decisions. God’s word teaches us that times of misfortune should be times of repentance for the people. When God allows a time of misfortune to come upon a land, he speaks through it to the people on account of their sins. God said by the prophet Jeremiah (6:19): “Hear, O earth; behold I am bringing disaster upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not paid attention to my words.” So there is no doubt that God, also through the misfortune which he is now allowing to come upon us because of our sins, speaks with us and moves us to repentance.

Which sins are predominant among us? God desires above all one thing from all men, including Americans. They should hear the gospel of Christ and believe it. This is why he allows the world to continue to exist. This is why he preserves government and the entire civil order among us and in other lands. If there were no gospel to preach and to hear, there would be no more world and no United States. How do things stand in our country with respect to the preaching, reception and honoring of the gospel? The greater half of the residents of this country is evidently un-churched. They desire to know nothing of the Savior who died for them…

And how are things among us? We have the gospel. We preach not politics and human morality, but Jesus Christ the Crucified as the sole basis of salvation. But do we rightly honor the gospel? Do we diligently hear it? Do we diligently read it? Do we really love it? Are our hearts fixed on heaven through the gospel? Are we dead to the sinful ways of this world? Do we make use of our earthly possessions above all to advance the gospel? This and similar questions will lead us to the recognition that we too are guilty of the sin of this country, namely the despising of the gospel. We should repent of these sins. The present misfortune of our country and other public misfortune should remind us of this. God can and will not leave the sin of the despising of the gospel unpunished. Luther understood this. When the Germans despised the gospel, he told them, “that it would be no wonder if God were to allow Turks, yes finally mere devils swarm over Germany.” (Erlangen Ed. 32.75)

Where the gospel is despised, there godlessness rules in life. If Christ does not rule in the hearts of men through the gospel, then the flesh rules. There is no third possibility…

It has been suggested that all anarchists be deported. That means that they be removed from the country and brought to a place where they can no longer harm human society. That would certainly be right and good and very desirable state law. But we must not think that we would have completely rooted out anarchism which such laws. The plant has very extensive roots. All people, but especially Christians, should recognize that the murderous spirit, which brought about this horrid murderous act, resides in every human heart and therefore must be acknowledged and fought. He who knows our heart described it this way (Mark 7:21-23): “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within.” So it is with every heart, also with every American heart. And it does not merely remain a matter of thought. The murderous spirit is so evident in word and deed that it is hard to comprehend.

Only a few examples. In our country labor and capital are for the most part enemies of each other. Workers join together. But they are not satisfied merely to unite. In many cases they use their union in order to harm their neighbors. They demand that workers who do not belong to their union should be given no work. To achieve this end people often grab hold of stones, knives, revolvers and dynamite. That is the murderous spirit of anarchy. On the other side the capitalists join together. But they are not satisfied merely with such unity. In many cases they use it to ruin the businesses of and trample neighbors who are not in the “trust.” That is the murderous anarchical spirit of the capitalists. Furthermore, in recent decades the number of children, particularly among the American born population, has taken a dive. The chief cause is that hundreds of thousands of American women consistently murder their unborn children, with and without the consent of their husbands. This murderous spirit has become so prevalent that the well known preacher Parkhurst [Charles Henry Parkhurst 1842-1932] has accused a portion of American women of seeking to save the children of heathen, while they murder their own progeny. This year a well-known professor of medicine admonished a class of beginning doctors that they reject abortion, which is commonly practiced… The lynch-mobs which we can not eradicate from our land directly destroy civil order and continuously reveal an entirely shocking savagery and murderousness.

Enough of the examples taken from the life of our nation. Let’s take a look at ourselves. If we also – which is certainly not the case – were entirely free of the particular manifestation of the murderous spirit, which we find among the capitalists and workers, the abortionists and the secret societies, the lynchers, etc., we still stand before the law of God judged as murderers. The Scriptures say (I John 3:15): “Everyone who hates his brothers is a murderer.” Indeed, the wrath which rises in our hearts against the neighbor is murder before God. The desires which we have to harm our neighbor are murderous in God’s sight. Luther is quite right in his explication of the gospel on the sixth Sunday after Trinity regarding the sin against the fifth commandment: “Now whether indeed one grade is worse than another, still all of it – the lowest as much as the highest – is sin against this (fifth) commandment. Thus whoever merely bears loathing in his heart, anger or disfavor against another, is a murderer before God.” May this act of murder, which has thrown all of us citizens of this land into horror and travail, remind us all precisely of this. And may we recognize and confess that we all would burn in hell as murderers, if the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not cleanse us also from the sin of murder.

A completely wretched spectacle has played out right before our eyes in the murder of our president. Something that should humble and lead a people to repentance, is used for self-glorification. “You have struck them down, but they felt no anguish; you have consumed them, but they refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent.” (Jeremiah 5:3) But we throw ourselves in the dust before God and say:

Christ, thou lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy upon us!
Christ, thou lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy upon us!
Christ, thou lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us Thy peace! Amen.
F.P

[1] Was will Gott uns durch das oeffentliche Unglueck, das ueber unser Land gekommen ist, lehren? Der Lutheraner vol. 57, no. 20 (October 1, 1901), pp. 1f.

See also:

1. Public Religion Research
2. Orthodox, But Unconverted Ministers, Are a Great Misfortune for a Congregation
3. We, however, teach neither, and do both!
4. Things the Philosophers Teach

By God’s grace, we understand the correct, Christian unity desired by God, the unity in the faith. It is the purpose of the following theses to remind us of this and to enliven us toward this unity. The theses are as follows:

I. By “unity in the faith,” we understand the agreement in all articles of Christian doctrine that is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

II. This unity in the faith is possible, because all articles of Christian doctrine are clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

III. This unity in the faith is willed by God, because God commands the complete acceptance of His entire revelation and strictly forbids every departure from the same.

IV. The necessary external testimony to this unity in the faith consists in that those who stand in the unity of the faith confess one another as brothers in the faith.

V. Those who enjoy this unity of the faith should diligently seek to care for and guard this unity as a glorious gift granted freely by the grace of God.

from Franz Pieper on Unity (1888), in “At Home in the House of My Fathers,” p. 572.

See also:

1. “The Evangelical Lutheran Church observes the unity of confession and love toward all who share with it the one faith.”
2. Concerning the Unity of the Lutheran Church
3. The Indissoluble Unity of Sign and Object
4. The Unity of the Lutheran Church

God is very merciful. God is merciful in all his works. God gives food to all flesh and fodder to cattle. He also takes to heart the physical misery of mankind. Thus when the Son of God walked upon the earth he also eliminated physical misery. He fed the hungry, healed the sick, and brought the dead to life. In our text it says that he not only “taught in their schools and preached the gospel of the kingdom,” but it adds, “and he healed every disease and every affliction” among the people. This mindset is also given to the Christian. In general Christians take on the physical misery of their brothers [in the faith] and their neighbors. Wherever Christians encounter physical need, they take it to heart and they take pains to alleviate this need as much as they can. But the Christian knows that the physical need of man is not the greatest need of man. He knows that the mercy of the Christian would be a poor mercy in deed if it would stop after it had addressed the physical need. Indeed, it is the case that if Christians were to achieve the alleviation of all physical need on earth, if they achieved the feeding of all the hungry, the clothing of all the naked, and find homes for all the abandoned, healing all the sick and making all the poor rich, but cease with their mercy at this point, they would they be very imprudent, unmerciful and pitiless.

The Lord said: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?” [Matthew 16:26] Every person must suffer damage to his soul, that means, every person must be lost eternally in hell, who does not have and believe the gospel of Christ the crucified. If we therefore want to show true mercy to the world and to those around us, doing the most important work of Christian mercy, then we must educate and send out teachers of the gospel. That is also taught in our text. Our text reports that while Christ taught he also healed all sorts of illness among the people. But when he sums up the desperate situation of the people and places it before our eyes he does not say, “Pray to the Lord for doctors.” He says rather, “Pray to the Lord that he send workers,” that is, teachers and preachers, “into his harvest.” It is not that the Christian should not be merciful also over against physical need, but rather because he desires to emphasize that they do the most important work of Christian mercy in the preparation and sending out of teachers of the gospel.

Translated by Matthew Harrison from: http://mercyjourney.blogspot.com/2008/08/franz-pieper-on-mercy-mission-and-sem.html

See also:

1. Preaching and Teaching in the Early Church
2. End of the Line for Journey Together Faithfully

[1] Sasse to Leiv Aalen, March 23, 1975. Sasse corresponded with Aalen for nearly forty years. The last years were especially filled with Aalen’s distress at the direction of his faculty in Oslo and of the Norwegian Church. MH

http://mercyjourney.blogspot.com/2012/04/sasse-breakdown-easter-1946.html

If all things written in Scripture must be fulfilled, Scripture cannot be the word of man, but must be the Word of Him who holds everything in heaven and on earth in the palms of His hand, who guides all events, without whom nothing in heaven and on earth can occur, who is omnipotent and all-knowing, who is, in short, the great majestic God Himself. – Olshausen says concerning the quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are not adduced as mere corroborations drawn from humanly important writings, but as irrefutable proofs from divine books. They possesses this convincing power because they proceeded not from human sages, but from men who were moved by the Holy Ghost.

from Franz Pieper, “Church Dogmatics, vol. 1″

See also:

1. Two Offices of the Holy Ghost
2. Holy Church or Holy Writ?
3. Faith Now Flits Like A Ghost in Empty Phrases…
4. That It Might be Fulfilled…

Christ’s official duties did not begin with His Baptism, which was His solemn induction into His public ministry, but with His incarnation, with which His humiliation coincided. Christ was the Christ for us in His very conception, birth, circumcision, filial obedience, etc. “Christ passed through all stages of our existence that He might fully remedy our unclean conception and birth.” Hear the eloquent words of Luther: “Our salvation was brought about by this very thing, that Christ and the believing heart are so united that what the one has, is given to the other. And what do they give each other? Christ has a pure, innocent, holy birth; man’s birth is unclean, sinful, cursed, as David says Ps. 51:5, which cannot be healed other than through the pure birth of Christ…

Thus, then, Christ takes from us unto Himself our birth and sinks it into His birth, and gives us His birth that we might become pure and new in it, as though it were our own. Christians may rejoice and glory in this birth as though they, like Christ, had been bodily born of Mary. Whoever does not believe that, or doubts it, is no Christian.” (St. L. XI:127; cf. also XI:2022ff.) In the same way Luther speaks of the vicarious character of Christ’s circumcision.

from Franz Pieper, “Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2″

See also:

1. Christ the Wonderful Person

But the Koran is a product patched together from different religions. Therefore, it is also contrary to the foregoing (Surah 3,85): “Whoever accepts a religion other than Islam, of them God does not take care, belonging in that world to the lost.” It is also a fact that in the Koran is found a number of statements in which Moses and Christ are recommended as prophets. So says Surah 2,87, : “Once we revealed to Moses the Scripture, let him follow still other messengers, equipped Jesus, the son of Miriam, with conviction and gave him the Holy Spirit.” On the other hand the Koran insists however that Mohammed stood over Moses and Christ and all the prophets, and is the correct interpreter of all prophets. Surah 61,6: “When Jesus, the son of Mary said: O children of Israel, verily I am God’s messenger to you, confirming what was there before me from the law, and bring the good news of an Apostle who will come after me, whose name is Ahmed [Mohammed] is.” Mohammed, as had been done before by Mani, based on the promise of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) himself by him at the same time gave the name of Ahmed. (Ex Oriente Lux, Yearbook of the German Orient Mission, 1903, p 24) The small anti-Christ makes it like the great Anti-Christ because the papacy also recommends Moses and Christ but reserves for himself the higher supervision of both, namely their interpreter.

from Franz Pieper, “Lehre und Wehre” (June 1927)

See also:

1. Docetism & Muhammed

How shall we account for this wonderful power of the Gospel to move men to accept it? Scripture accounts for it. The preaching of Christ Crucified is, indeed, “unto the Jews, a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23), but the power of the Holy Ghost is operative in this preaching. Christ keeps His promise; the Holy Ghost, sent by Him, glorifies Him (“He shall glorify Me,” (John 16:14). it was thus in Corinth. When Paul there preached “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified,” without any display of rhetoric (“not with excellency of speech”) or any display of demonstration (“not with enticing words of man’s wisdom”), his preaching took place “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” It was not man’s wisdom, but the power of God which created faith in the Corinthians.

from Franz Pieper, “Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2″

See also:

1. How Is Faith Produced in Man?
2. Faith & Knowledge
3. The Word of God and Faith
4. Theses on Law, Gospel & Faith

First, an exhibiting and conferring, or imparting, power, and,
Second, as a result of this, an efficacious, or operative, power.

The conferring, or imparting, power consists in this, that these means offer men the forgiveness of sinsn supplied through Christ’s work of reconciliation, hence God’s grace. In other words, through the means of grace God reveals and declares to men that He is fully reconciled through Christ, that because of Christ’s work He loves them and would have them believe it. The efficacious, or operative, power of the means of grace consists in this, that through them the Holy Spirit works and strengthens faith, faith in the very forgiveness, God’s love and grace, which these means declare and reveal. When the means of grace are rejected or impaired, human works regularly take the place of Christ’s substitutionary satisfaction as the basis of salvation.

Seeberg: “The doctrinal understanding of the means of grace begins with the relation of these means to the work of Christ.”

The starting point in presenting the doctrine of the means of grace must be the universal objective reconciliation or justification. The reconciliation which Christ brought about is history, a finished event lying the past that pertains to all mankind and is of an entirely objective character. For it does not consist in a change of mind or “moral transformation” on the part of man, but in a change in God; God in His heart is not imputing their trespasses unto men, but forgiving them (2Cor5:19). To the report of the finished universal objective reconciliation the Apostle immediately adds that God has committed unto us the Word or news of this complete reconciliation in order that men may share in the finished reconciliation. Hence the first means of grace is “the Word of Reconciliation,” the Word of the Gospel. The Law of God, which is also contained in Scripture, must be excluded from the concept “means of grace,” because the Law does not assure those who have transgressed it – and all men have transgressed it – of the remission of their sins, or God’s grace, but on the contrary proclaims God’s wrath and damnation. For this reason the Law is expressly called, “the ministration of condemnation,” whereas the Gospel is “the ministration of righteousness” (2Cor 3:9).

Two things must be kept in mind. The Gospel is means of grace not only in the sense that it tells of a readiness on the part of God to forgive, but in the sense that whenever we hear the Gospel, we hear God pronouncing absolution upon us, forgiving our sins. Furthermore, the Gospel is such a means of grace in every form in which it reaches men, whether it be preached (Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:47), or printed (John 20:31; 1John 1:3-4), or expressed as a formal absolution (John 20:23), or pictured in symbols or types (John 3:14-15), or pondered in the heart (Rom 10:8), and so forth.

Scripture equates the read and the preached Word of Good as it pertains to the conferring of grace and the working of faith. The Formula of Concord: “And by this means, and in no other way, namely, through His holy Word, when men hear it preached, or read it, and the holy Sacraments, when they are used according to His Word, God desires to call men to eternal salvation, draw them to Himself, and convert, regenerate, and sanctify them” (Trigl 901). Furthermore God has attached the promise of the forgiveness of sins to certain external acts which He has ordained, namely, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Scripture says expressly that Baptism takes place “for the remission of sins,” or “to wash away sins” (Acts 2:38; 22:16). In the Lord’s Supper Christ likewise bestows His body as given and His blood as shed “for the remission of sins” (Luke 22:19-20; Matt 26:26-28). For this reason also Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are means of grace. Because the actions with which the forgiveness of sins is connected are visible, these rites, in distinction from the mere Word of the Gospel, have been called “verbum visibile” (visible word)…

Apology: “But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes our eye in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible Word, because the rite is received by the eye and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same.” (Trigl 309)

All means of grace have the same purpose and the same effect, namely, the conferring of the forgiveness of sins and the resultant engendering and strengthening of faith. Where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation, with the full measure of divine gifts. Luther: “The remembrance of Christ rather consists in teaching and believing the power and the fruit of His suffering; accordingly, that our works and merit are worthless, that the free will is dead and lost, that, on the contrary, we are absolved from our sin and become righteous solely through Christ’s suffering and death; hence that the remembrance consists in teaching or recalling the grace of God in Christ and not in a work done by us.”

from Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. 3

See also:

1. How May We Obtain the Remission of Sins?
2. Alas, My God, My Sins are Great
3. When O'er My Sins I Sorrow
4. The Power to Forgive Sins

[John 6:1-15] Even many people who want to know nothing about Christianity would put up with Christianity to enter into the kingdom of heaven and to have His glorious possessions if no conversion, renunciation, and denial of the world and its possessions were demanded of them. But that scares them off. Others think they can unite both with each other, namely to live for earthly things and at the same time to be in Christ’s kingdom, because they stick with the Church, pray, etc. But this is an impossible beginning, as Christ says: “You cannot serve God and mammon.” Such people live in a wicked self-deception if they think they are inChrist’s kingdom. We see clearly from our text today,

that all those who are still earthly minded cannot be in Christ’s kingdom; I’ll showy you,

1. what it means to be earthly minded,

a. not that one makes use of and needs earthly possessions. Jesus Himself helped ensure that the people got to eat, He also held
a conversation with His disciples, let the people lie down for feeding, took the bread in His hands, and lay it before His disciples; said also afterwards to set aside the fragments that remain,

b. but that one sees earthly possessions as the main thing and therefore either only seeks after earthly things and is not at all concerned about heavenly things, or that one will still seek heavenly things only in passing and therefore allow it to be inferior and breaks away from it, where it seems to be a hindrance to earthly things, or that one therefore externally seeks heavenly things, because one expects it from earthly benefits or enjoys such benefits. The people wanted to catchJesus and make Him king, because he had fed them with so little effort and therefore they hoped to find good days in His kingdom[1];

2. why those cannot be in Christ’s kingdom,

a. Christ’s kingdom is not an earthly kingdom [2],
but a spiritual and heavenly kingdom. Whoever will be in this kingdom must therefore have a heavenly mind,
b. A heavenly mind cannot be in a man, as long as the earthly mind is still dominant, but only if his heart has been changed through a true conversion.

Chr. K.

1. Cf. John 6:26ff.
2. John 6:15

See also:

1. Sermon for the First Sunday in Lent; Matthew 4:1-11
2. Lent II
3. A Memorable Fourth of July
4. Lent V

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Missouri Synod had no greater teacher than Franz Pieper. The successor of the synod’s founder, C.F.W. Walther, was well equipped to lead the synod after Walther’s death. The fifty-six year ministry of this man shaped the Missouri Synod as it became the most influential synod in American Lutheranism.

Franz Pieper was born June 27, 1852 in Carwitz, Pomerania to August Pieper, mayor of Carwitz, and Bertha Lohf.1 He had five brothers and one sister;2 three of his brothers like him became called ministers of the gospel: Reinhold was a professor at the Missouri Synod seminary in Springfield, IL; August was a professor at the Wisconsin Synod seminary in Thiensville, WI; and Anton was a pastor in the Wisconsin Synod.3 This is impressive considering the religious climate in Germany during this time.

During the 1800s, Lutheranism in Germany was under serious attack from many sides. The King of Prussia had established the Prussian Union in 1817 which united the Lutheran and Reformed Churches under one banner. This caused great confusion in issues where the Lutheran church and the Reformed church did not agree doctrinally. Although the Lutheran Church was able to maintain its doctrinal positions in some of its churches, in other churches it became increasingly difficult to prevent Reformed theology from creeping in.4 However, Lutheranism was also under attack from outside sources.

The 1800s were also the heyday of Modernism. Modernism rejected the previously held norms of religion, science, and art. Modernism even crept into the theology of Lutheran professors at various universities throughout Germany. Lutheran theology was muddled by new ideas which broke away from the traditional Lutheran theology found in the Lutheran confessions. As more and more theologians discovered new points of theology, the Lutheran doctrinal position became weaker and weaker in Germany. This is the climate in which Franz Pieper began his education.5

At age 16, he began Gymnasium at Koeslin and later at Kolberg. At these schools, he attended a broad variety of classes one would expect in a normal high school education: foreign language, mathematics, history, and science. However, in 1870, his mother moved him and his family to Watertown, WI.6 There, he attended Northwestern University, the college of the Wisconsin Synod, and graduated in 1872. Because the Wisconsin Synod had no seminary, his education continued at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis.7 While at Concordia, Pieper received the tools he needed to become a great teacher from one of the greatest teachers in the history of the American Lutheran church, C.F.W. Walther. His years at seminary were relatively uneventful and he graduated in 1875.8

Pieper began his pastoral career that same year in Centerville, WI.9 This call was to two parishes, one being St. John’s in Centerville and the other being St. Peter’s, which was outside of the town. While at Centerville, Pieper became engaged to Minnie Koehn, and later they became married. All this took place in a short two years after which Pieper accepted a call to First German Evangelical Lutheran Church in Manitowoc, WI. However, Pieper did not remain long in Manitowoc.

He began his career as seminary professor in 1878 when he was called to be Professor of Dogmatics and Pastoral Theology at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis.10 He would remain as professor there until his death in 1931. However, during his time there, his role at the seminary and within the Missouri Synod would change. In 1887, he became president of the seminary, a role which he would maintain until his death. He also served as president of the Missouri Synod from 1899 until 1911. Through his various roles, Pieper was in a position to be a great teacher for the entire Missouri Synod.

When he died in 1931, Pieper had served in the Missouri Synod for fifty-six years.11 All the professors on the Concordia Seminary faculty at the time of his death had learned under him.12 Most of the pastors in the entire synod had learned under him as well. The teaching of Pieper had an influence reaching throughout the entire Missouri Synod; he was truly the synod’s teacher.

Not only did Franz Pieper teach through his role as professor at Concordia Seminary. He also wrote many articles for Der Lutheraner, the Missouri Synod bi-monthly publication, and for Lehre und Wehre, the theological periodical of the Missouri Synod.13 His most famous writing, however, is Christian Dogmatics, a dogmatics textbook which was used at Concordia Seminary for many years. Through all these writings, Pieper was able to teach not only his students, but also many other members of the Missouri Synod.

Through his far-reaching influence, Franz Pieper was able to use his God-given gifts to instruct the Missouri Synod after the death of its first teacher, C.F.W. Walther. It can be seen through his role as professor and as writer that he was able to reach many souls who desired to increase their knowledge of the doctrines of the bible. Franz Pieper was certainly a gift from God to the Missouri Synod.

Theodore Graebner, Dr. Francis Pieper: A Biographical Sketch (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1931), 5. ↩
Graebner, Dr. Francis Pieper 7. ↩
Max Lehninger, “D. Franz Pieper,” Theologische Quartalschrift 28 (October 1931): 247-256. ↩
Graebner, Dr. Francis Pieper 6. ↩
Graebner, Dr. Franz Pieper 7. ↩
Dr. L. Fuerbringer, “D. Franz Pieper,” Der Lutheraner, 16 June 1931, 194. ↩
Graebner, Dr. Francis Pieper 10. ↩
Fuerbringer, “D. Franz Pieper” 194. ↩
Graebner, Dr. Francis Pieper 12. ↩
Lehninger, “D. Franz Pieper” 248. ↩
Lehninger, “D. Franz Pieper” 249. ↩
“Dr. Franz Pieper,” Ev.-Luth. Gemeinde Blatt (July 12, 1931), 219. ↩
Fuerbringer, “D. Franz Pieper” 193. ↩

See also:

1. On Doctrine and Practice
2. Address at the Opening of a New Academic Year By F. Pieper
3. What Makes a Church a “Missionary Church”?
4. The Great Joy Which Should Accompany Genuine Confessional Loyalty

When the means of grace are rejected or impaired, human works regularly take the place of Christ’s substitutionary satisfaction as the basis of salvation. Seeberg: “The doctrinal understanding of the means of grace begins with the relation of these means to the work of Christ.” The starting point in presenting the doctrine of the means of grace must be the universal objective reconciliation or justification. The reconciliation which Christ brought about is history, a finished event lying the past that pertains to all mankind and is of an entirely objective character. For it does not consist in a change of mind or “moral transformation” on the part of man, but in a change in God; God in His heart is not imputing their trespasses unto men, but forgiving them (2Cor5:19).

To the report of the finished universal objective reconciliation the Apostle immediately adds that God has committed unto us the Word or news of this complete reconciliation in order that men may share in the finished reconciliation. Hence the first means of grace is “the Word of Reconciliation,” the Word of the Gospel. The Law of God, which is also contained in Scripture, must be excluded from the concept “means of grace,” because the Law does not assure those who have transgressed it – and all men have transgressed it – of the remission of their sins, or God’s grace, but on the contrary proclaims God’s wrath and damnation. For this reason the Law is expressly called, “the ministration of condemnation,” whereas the Gospel is “the ministration of righteousness” (2 Cor 3:9).

Two things must be kept in mind. The Gospel is means of grace not only in the sense that it tells of a readiness on the part of God to forgive, but in the sense that whenever we hear the Gospel, we hear God pronouncing absolution upon us, forgiving our sins. Furthermore, the Gospel is such a means of grace in every form in which it reaches men, whether it be preached (Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:47), or printed (John 20:31; 1John 1:3-4), or expressed as a formal absolution (John 20:23), or pictured in symbols or types (John 3:14-15), or pondered in the heart (Rom 10:8), and so forth. Scripture equates the read and the preached Word of Good as it pertains to the conferring of grace and the working of faith. The Formula of Concord: “And by this means, and in no other way, namely, through His holy Word, when men hear it preached, or read it, and the holy Sacraments, when they are used according to His Word, God desires to call men to eternal salvation, draw them to Himself, and convert, regenerate, and sanctify them” (Trigl 901).

Furthermore God has attached the promise of the forgiveness of sins to certain external acts which He has ordained, namely, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Scripture says expressly that Baptism takes place “for the remission of sins,” or “to wash away sins” (Acts 2:38; 22:16). In the Lord’s Supper Christ likewise bestows His body as given and His blood as shed “for the remission of sins” (Luke 22:19-20; Matt 26:26-28). For this reason also Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are means of grace. Because the actions with which the forgiveness of sins is connected are visible, these rites, in distinction from the mere Word of the Gospel, have been called “verbum visibile” (visible word). Apology: “But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes our eye in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible Word, because the rite is received by the eye and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same.” (Trigl 309)

All means of grace have the same purpose and the same effect, namely, the conferring of the forgiveness of sins and the resultant engendering and strengthening of faith. Where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation, with the full measure of divine gifts. Luther: “The remembrance of Christ rather consists in teaching and believing the power and the fruit of His suffering; accordingly, that our works and merit are worthless, that the free will is dead and lost, that, on the contrary, we are absolved from our sin and become righteous solely through Christ’s suffering and death; hence that the remembrance consists in teaching or recalling the grace of God in Christ and not in a work done by us.”

from Franz Pieper, “Church Dogmatics, vol. 3″

See also:

1. The Estate God Has Ordained
2. Lesbian Priest Ordained Bishop in Stockholm

from Franz Pieper, “The Distinction Between Orthodox & Heterodox Churches”

See also:

1. Hankering After Sectarian Churches
2. Orthodox and Heterodox Churches
3. The dying of the confessional church began in the Reformed Churches.
4. A Single Illness Threatens the Lutheran Churches of the World

from Franz Pieper, “Christian Dogmatics,” vol. 1, pg. 25ff.

See also:

1. Calvin, A Luther Disciple?
2. The Difference Between the Lutheran & Reformed Church…

What induces us to discuss this question is the fact that Pastor Roebbelen in connection with the glosses on the Revelation of St. John published in the Lutheraner also stated that with Luther he does not regard the Apocalypse as canonical. This has, we are informed, given great offense in some quarters. Now, we do not agree with our dear brother Roebbelen on this point; we are convinced that this precious book, so rich in comfort for the Christians and the Church, belongs to the canon. Still, we believe that it is not fair — probably it is due to ignorance of the facts of the case — to stamp an otherwise unimpeachable theologian as a dangerous false teacher, who renders the very Word of God suspect, one who sincerely receives as canonical all homologoumena (universally accepted books), but who has his doubts as to the canonicity of one or the other of the antilegomena (disputed books). This would be thoroughly un-Lutheran. For our dear fathers in the faith, with hardly an exception till after the time of the Formula of Concord, regarded and declared all or at least some of the antilegomena as not belonging to the canon; and they did that not from hastiness or levity toward the Word of God, but, on the contrary, because they were very conscientious with regard to the Word of God. Luther’s opinions on the antilegomena are not a “blot” on our Church, but they rather bear witness how careful our Church once was in determining the standard and norm of our faith and life. The summary decrees of the Papists and the Reformed that all the antilegomena must be received as canonical by all Christians on pain of losing their salvation are so little a testimony for the high regard of these denominations for the Word of God that they rather demonstrate how easy it is for those to add something to the canon who hold that the Scriptures are to be interpreted either, in a blind collier’s faith, according to the whim of the Church (that is, of the Pope) or according to the principles of reason. It will therefore not be improper to submit here the testimony of our fathers, particularly of the 16th and the first half of the 17th century; not that we personally hold these opinions, but in order to show that doubts as to the canonicity of the disputed books were held also by men whose orthodoxy no Lutheran would dare to deny, and thus to clear a man like Luther of the suspicion that he had brazenly, in his subjective pleasure, passed judgment on books which had been received into the New Testament Canon.

Walther concludes his article with the words:

If this question be treated in a Christian manner, if the poor laymen are not confused by a dishonest presentation of the real issue, by a partisan exploitation of a matter which the common people find it hard to grasp — which may easily be done here — the discussion of the question can only serve to arouse the Christians to a serious investigation and thus to deepen and strengthen their knowledge and their faith. If any periodical takes cognizance of this our discussion, we herewith state beforehand that we shall not deem any foolish babbling, parading in the guise of a defense, of God’s Word, worthy of an answer; but any pertinent ventilation of this important subject will receive our attention, even though it pronounce ever so sharp a verdict on our old teachers, Luther, Brenz, Chemnitz, Veit Dietrich, Conrad Dietrich, etc.

In this article, Walther quotes extensively from Chemnitz, who in his Examen Concilii Tridentini exposes, in clear and powerful language, the Antichristian and insane character of the above-mentioned papal decree with its appended anathema. Because this presentation is considered a “classic” even today, we here submit it in its salient points.

from Francis Pieper, “Christian Dogmatics,” Vol. I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], pp. 330-38.

See also:

1. The Witness of History for Scripture (Homologoumena and Antilegomena)
2. The Witness of History for Scripture
3. The Witness of History for Scripture
4. Resurrection History

For the Scriptures of the New Testament we have the historical witness of the Early Church (ecclesia primitiva). Its witness is unanimous as to the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter (homologoumena). But as to the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, doubts, more or less strongly expressed, were entertained (antilegomena). Eusebius in his Church History lists the homologoumena and the antilegomena. The historical fact that the Early Church differentiated between the homologoumena and the antilegomena cannot be changed by a resolution of the later Church. Luther, too, abides by this judgment of the primitive Church; he says, appealing to Eusebius (Church History III, 25), that in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse “had a different reputation.” He finds much excellent instruction in the antilegomena, grants that the offensive passages may be explained acceptably by “glosses,” and will keep no one from appraising them as he sees fit. But he will not class them with the “right certain chief books of the New Testament.” As for himself, he will let the doubt entertained by the Early Church remain. Chemnitz denounced the action of the Roman Catholic Church in declaring the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the antilegomena of the New Testament a part of the canon of Scripture by a mere decree and in anathematizing all those who refused to accept the canon fixed in the Vulgate, as anti-Christian.

from Francis Pieper, “Christian Dogmatics,” Vol. I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], pp. 330-38.

See also:

1. The Witness of History for Scripture
2. The Witness of History for Scripture
3. The Inspiration of Scripture
4. Scripture is Clear & Understandable

The “Everlasting Father” is and was, according to our text, He Who was twelve years old. Even so, the truth of his name “Wonderful” comes before our eyes. But this happens even more when we hear that He also increased in age with wisdom.

a. Who is He Who grows in wisdom? The Christ Child, the God-Man, He “in Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge of God”: Who was like another Man. He, Who knows everything, had divested Himself of the use of communicated by omniscience and divine wisdom according to His human nature and trod the path to learn wisdom, as other people like Him, His brothers, must go. We cannot draw down Christ too deeply in our flesh. He endeavored to learn; He went to teachers, listened to them and questioned them.He made use of human learning resources. And He learned with success, His circle of knowledge became gradually larger, He went on, and His growth was revealed.

b. He increased in wisdom. He did not fill His brain with all sorts of vain,useless, purposeless knowledge, but He grew in such knowledge that made Him wise, it evermore equipped Him to be useful all the more and better to serve His brothers and sisters according to the flesh. Not only did He grow in γνῶσις,1 Colossians 2:3.2 Luke 2:46.3 Luke 2:47. cognitio, but also in σοφία, sapentia; He learned to apply His acquired knowledge ever better for good, salutary purposes for this life, but chiefly for that life. He would serve men. In particular, He increased in heavenly wisdom, in knowledge of the Divine Word, counsel, and will through diligent study of God’s written revelation. Wonderful! The One Who knows everything, learned, learned more and more, was always wise.

c. Why did this happen, for what reason is this reported? An example for us, particularly the dear youth, as an example for imitation. This is welcome praise of Christian youth, if it can be said of them that they are growing in wisdom, that that they are not about appropriating all sorts of useless or even dangerous and harmful knowledge, but useful knowledge, primarily that they may grow in Christian, divine knowledge and thus always better become capable to believe rightly, to live a godly life, to serve one’s neighbor, and evento die blessed. The example of the Child Jesus should be a strong inducement for them. What is praised by Christ, is certainly also welcome praise of our youth.

See also:

1. Christ the Wonderful Person

This is the wish of many on this day: a means that prevents misfortune and brings good luck. Many have their opinion. Some have, according to their opinion, such an agent (relics, amulets, shamrock, etc.). These are foolish talk and evil. Whoever relies on them, has no luck, but bad luck. He draws down God’s wrath and punishment upon himself. This means is the dear Name of Jesus. Our Gospel entices us to the right use of the Name of Jesus. God has admonished us about this in particular through Paul.

Do everything in the Name of the Lord Jesus! because

1. for this purpose has God given us this name.

a. God has given us this name. α. The little Child received this Name in His circumcision. God has given to Him the same. β. But yet this Name is given to us. It is for our use and benefit. This shows the name of Jesus, Savior, Redeemer, Sanctifier.

b. God has given it to us for this purpose, that we should do everything in the Name of Jesus. In other words α. nothing, that one merely says with the mouth, “In the Name of Jesus!”, or that one strikes a cross with the hand with all sorts of plans, or that one uses the Name of Jesus externally as a magical cure. This is all superstition and an abomination before God. In other words β. Rather, to orient everything in reliance on His healing, in invoking His help, in the certainty of his good pleasure, in the desire for his glorification. We Christians should do everything with Christ’s power, from Christ’s Spirit. Jesus’ Spirit and power is acquired only through confidence in Jesus, the Savior. What is done in such power, in such confidence, this we do in Jesus’ Name. Actually, we do not do this, Jesus does this in us.

c. God has given this Name to us for this purpose, that we do everything in Him. Everything that we do in the new year should be done in His Name, in confidence in Him, under His invocation, to His glory: our church going, our prayer, our suffering, our work as businessmen, workers, house fathers, house mothers, teachers and preachers, our dying. Everything that is not done in the Name of Jesus is displeasing to God and sinful. Jesus is the only One with Whom the Father is well-pleased. All works that are not done in the Name of Jesus are therefore condemnable. Only when our works are done in Jesus’ Name can they be pleasing to God.
Truly, that should move us to do everything in Jesus’ Name. God, the careful, compassionate Father, has given this Name to us for this purpose. Should we also not make use of it now? What does a true son with the legacy of his father, a daughter with the gift of mother? Yes, we do everything in Jesus’ Name, because

2. we have nothing but blessings from this.

a. This Name is a powerful Word of God, a divine promise. Jesus means Savior, etc. Everything that God has promised in Scripture about grace, salvation, etc., about physical, spiritual, and heavenly possessions is certain and firm, thus in particular this Name. Everything that is located in the Name of Jesus must be to him who does everything in His Name.

b. Jesus Himself is in His Name. Whoever does everything in Jesus’ Name has Jesus himself in all his ways, the all-powerful, living, acting Jesus. Since everything must go well, nothing but blessing is there.

c. What delightful promises God has attached to this name: answering our prayers; life; being justified; health. (The apostles have done miracles in Jesus’ Name. In so doing they certainly have a particular mandate. Still, this proves the power of that Name.) The devil gives way before the Name of Jesus; enemies have fear before this Name. If one who has such promises does everything in the Name, one has nothing but happiness in everything he does.

d. How confidently we can begin the new year with this Name. If we believe in this Name, then we have forgiveness, righteousness, then our prayer will always be heard; then our work is not lacking in strength and blessing; then we have protection and guardian angels during rest and sleep; patience in suffering, strength, rescue; then death is easy for us and leads to glory.

Who even now can leave this house of God today without firm determination and to cherish the certain confidence:

Now, Lord, may all our doings ever
Be done in Thy good name each day,
And with Thine Amen may Thou never
Forsake our house, but with us stay!
Thy glorious name our hope let be,
Our shield and our prosperity!

Translated by David Juhl

See also:

1. Macau Ministry Center Celebrates 10 Years
2. 15 Congregations Celebrate 25 Years of Partnership

“Yesterday at the Bates Street cemetery of the local Germany Trinity and Holy Cross congregations, the sepulcher commemorating the departed Dr. C. F. W. Walther was dedicated. The mausoleum was devoted to the memory of the departed by the local Evangelical Lutheran congregations. The service began about 4 p.m., and in brief and impressive fashion, lasted three- quarters of an hour. Many, many members of the local Evangelical Lutheran congregations came by way of the Oak Hill Branch of the Missouri Pacific Railroad. Also present were many Germans who are not members of the congregations, yet hold the memory of the departed in high esteem. After Pastor Hermann Bartels spoke a few introductory words, the gathering sang the beautiful church hymn Jesus, meine Zuversicht [Jesus Christ, My Sure Defense], after which the aforementioned pastor read the Bible text, 1 Corinthians 15:12–23, 55, 57. Another hymn by the congregation, glorifying the eternal life won through Christ, led to the following festival address, delivered by Professor F. Pieper.” 1

Dear brethren in the faith! It was on May 7 in the year 1887 that God called out of this life the blessed Dr. Walther, professor of theology at the local Concordia College and pastor of the local Lutheran Gesammtgemeinde. Ten days later, on May 17, we buried his body here. After five years, the same death has given us occasion to assemble at the same place and in like numbers. We have not forgotten the departed one, and we do not want to forget him. This finished sepulcher should also be an external support for our remembrance.

Some months ago, in another place, we also had opportunity to think about this great and faithful teacher. We have erected his statue, hewn of marble, in the aula [hall] of our theological institution. And justifiably so! Dr. Walther was a great theological instructor. Indeed, he was—and I well know what I am saying—the greatest theologian of this century. It’s not that there were not men in this century who have acquired a greater external knowledge in the disciplines that contribute to the study of theology. But there is no known theologian of our century who had exceeded Walther in that which forms the very essence of theology, namely, the clear and certain knowledge of the doctrine revealed in the Scriptures and the ability to present this doctrine convincingly. God also used Walther to exercise a wide-ranging salutary influence upon the Church at large. Even those who found themselves opposed to him acknowledge this.

But Walther was not only a great theological instructor and a great teacher of the Church in general. He was also—this we must confess to God’s glory—great as a practical preacher and curate of souls [Seelsorger]. There are many men who as theologians have a great name, but with all their theology cannot rightly teach and lead a congregation, and thereby demonstrate that they deserve the name theologian only in a limited sense. Walther was a theologian who could also apply his entire theology in leading souls and thereby show that his theology was the correct form. It did not consist in the spouting of more or less learned-appearing human speculations. His theology was rather the ability to communicate the saving truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures to lead souls to salvation.

Let me now speak to you about Walther as a practical preacher and curate of souls. The theme is very comprehensive. I can keep this short because most of you knew Walther the pastor from your own experience.

Walther was above all a true pastor in his public preaching. His preaching was as didactic—that is, presenting the doctrine as clear and sharp—as it was heartfelt, warm, and urgent. In every sermon he gave clear instruction from the Scriptures on doctrine. But every hearer had to note that it had to do not with a mere communication of knowledge, but with the soul and salvation. He preached Law and Gospel in correct distinction and in their correct connection. He preached the Law so that the hearer had to acknowledge: “I cannot through my works be saved. In God’s eyes I am a damnable sinner; if I am re- garded according to what I merit, then wrath and eternal damnation are mine.” But then he preached so that he poured forth the entire fullness of the free grace of God revealed in the Gospel for his hearers. He preached that for every sinner—even the greatest—grace has been won by Christ and is present in the Gospel. Thus no sinner need doubt; rather, through faith in the Gospel, he can and should say: “The blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanses us from all sin.” The clearly acknowledged truth that God through Christ is completely reconciled with all men lay at the base of every one of Walther’s sermons. Thus the proper task of a Christian preacher consists in bringing men to faith in the redemption that has occurred and keeping men in this faith. Walther also understood how, as a preacher, to fill Christians with the desire for good works and a God-fearing life! He understood the art of stirring Christians to good works, without making human works the basis for salvation and without falling into a legalistic conversion of works. He admonished Christians to good works “through the mercy of God,” that is, through remembrance of the fact that for the sake of Christ, heaven and salvation are already given to them. Walther was convinced that with the correct evangelical admonition, one could accomplish everything among Christians.

Furthermore, Walther was a true pastor also in the private care of souls. Here in particular the old members of the congregation can speak from experience. But also those of us who are younger noted, from occasional communications of Walther regarding his pastoral activity, how for him every individual soul lay on his heart, and how he in particular went after the erring. The opposition, indeed, the open hostility that he experienced on the part of the erring did not prevent him from carrying out his office. He saw in these fallen ones only those purchased by the precious blood of Christ, but now souls captive in the net of sin. The curate of souls must seek to rescue them from perdition. Many such persons treated this way by Walther later came to thank this true curate of souls with tears in their eyes. Even when Walther had already been active as a theological professor as his proper office, he was often drawn into exercising private admonition.

Walther was also a true pastor through faithful intercession for the congregation. In his theological instruction, he admonished future pastors to pray daily for their congregations in general and for individual members whose spiritual or physical need is known to the pastor. He himself did this faithfully in the pastoral office. He made it a rule daily and regularly to pray for the congregation. When his office compelled him to speak with an individual, he had already previously spoken to God regarding that person. The need of the member of his congregation was his own need and drove him to prayer; their joy was his joy and moved him to pray in thanksgiving.

I must remind Lutheran congregations of something else. It was chiefly through the witness of Walther that in our time, the biblical doctrine of the nature, the value, and the duty of a Christian congregation was again placed in its proper light.

The often forgotten doctrine that not a sum of churchly orders or churchly persons [but] rather the Christians themselves are the Christian congregation or church he had again demonstrated to be the doctrine confessed in the Scriptures and in the Lutheran Confessions. What blessings this knowledge brought for the Church! With this knowledge, all in external association with the congregation will seriously examine themselves, whether or not there is in their hearts the living faith in Christ, the Savior. With this knowledge, the Church cannot foolishly rely on external means of power or any kind of worldly institutions to build itself. The Church’s entire concern is based upon the faithful and diligent preaching of the Word of God. This preaching of the Word alone works and maintains faith in Christ in the heart. It alone can build the Church.

Walther had also testified powerfully again to the doctrine of the rights of a Christian congregation, a doctrine that had largely been forgotten in Lutheran Christianity. He had again placed into proper light the worth of the Christian congregation granted it by Christ. He bore witness again that all spiritual goods and rights, which there are in the Church, belong not to one person or a few persons or to a particular estate in the Church, [but] rather to the entire congregation of believers. Through faith in Christ, Christians possess the forgiveness of sins. They are children of God and have salvation. Christ has given to them originally and immediately the Word and Sacraments and all spiritual goods and rights. They, the Christian congregations, therefore also have the right and duty to call preachers and to dismiss false teachers. Walther had also powerfully taught again the freedom of the Christian from all human regulations. As decisively as he emphasized that the Christian congregation must submit unconditionally to the Word of God, and all doctrine and admonition taken from the Holy Scriptures requires unconditional obedience, so decisively did he also maintain that no man, no matter how high his position in the world, may lay upon a Christian anything as a binding matter of conscience that is not commanded in the Scriptures.

Finally, Walther did not neglect to show the congregations their Christian duties. He taught: The entire congregation is to be concerned for and is therefore answerable to Christ to see that God’s Word holds sway pure and clear and richly in its midst. The entire Christian congregation is thus the spiritual society [Verein] established by God, that is, to place the light of divine truth upon the lampstand. Walther taught: The entire congregation has the duty to see to it that in its midst, Christian discipline is exercised, in order to guard against offense and so that the fallen brother be returned to the way of life. The Christian congregation is therefore the society established by God, in which the members are duty-bound to aid each other toward the acquisition of the final goal, the acquisition of salvation. Walther taught: The entire Christian congregation is duty-bound to take on also the physical need of its brothers, knowing that in these suffering brothers, Christ suffers, and that in them, Christ is served. Walther taught: The entire Christian congrega- tion is given the concern for the spreading of the Church through the preaching of the Gospel. The establishment, maintenance, and upkeep of Christian institutions are duties inseparably bound together with the Christian estate. The entire Christian congregation is therefore the mission society established by Christ.

Congregations are indebted above all to Dr. Walther for the clear witness to these divine truths. Truly, the congregations have every reason to thank this man who is their teacher. We do not wish to simply leave it at establishing this monument. Rather, by this monument, we would above all remind ourselves to firmly maintain the divine truth to which he bore witness, and to follow his example, which he as pastor and as Christian gave us by God’s grace. And finally: We stand at the grave of a man for whom Christian doc- trine and Christian faith was no mere theory. It was rather praxis. He finished the course and kept the faith to the end. God grant us all grace, that this earthly life and, finally, also death is for us the entrance into eternal life, where we shall thank God from eternity to eternity for all benefits, and also for the gift of this great and faithful teacher. Amen.

from Franz Pieper in “At Home in the House of My Fathers”

See also:

1. Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther Bicentennial (1811 – 2011)
2. Submit a Research Paper on CFW Walther
3. The Practical Ethical Lessons of Rationalism
4. Every Sincere Preacher & Minister of Jesus Christ…

In our country, labor and capital are for the most part enemies of each other. Workers join together. But they are not satisfied merely to unite. In many cases they use their union in order to harm their neighbors. They demand that workers who do not belong to their union should be given no work. To achieve this end, people often grab hold of stones, knives, revolvers, and dynamite. That is the murderous spirit of anarchy.

On the other side, the capitalists join together. But they are not satisfied merely with such unity. In many cases they use it to ruin the businesses of and trample neighbors who are not in the “trust.” That is the murderous anarchical spirit of the capitalists.

Furthermore, in recent decades, the number of children, particularly among the American-born population, has taken a dive. The chief cause is that hundreds of thousands of American women consistently murder their unborn children, with and without the consent of their husbands. This murderous spirit has become so prevalent that the well-known preacher Parkhurst [Charles Henry Parkhurst, 1842–1932] has accused a portion of American women of seeking to save the children of heathen while they murder their own progeny. This year a well-known professor of medicine admonished a class of beginning doctors that they reject abortion, which is commonly practiced.

…Enough of the examples taken from the life of our nation. Let’s take a look at ourselves. If we also—which is certainly not the case—were entirely free of the particular manifestation of the murderous spirit that we find among the capitalists and workers, the abortionists and the secret societies, the lynchers, etc., we still stand before the Law of God judged as murderers. The Scriptures say (1 John 3:15): “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer.” Indeed, the wrath that rises in our hearts against the neighbor is murder before God. The desires that we have to harm our neighbor are murderous in God’s sight. Luther is quite right in his explication of the Gospel on the Sixth Sunday after Trinity regarding the sin against the Fifth Commandment: “Now whether indeed one grade is worse than another, still all of it—the lowest as much as the highest—is sin against this (Fifth) commandment. Thus whoever merely bears loathing in his heart, anger or disfavor against another, is a murderer before God.” May this act of murder, which has thrown all of us citizens of this land into horror and travail, remind us all precisely of this. And may we recognize and confess that we all would burn in hell as murderers if the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not cleanse us also from the sin of murder.

A completely wretched spectacle has played out right before our eyes in the murder of our president. Something that should humble and lead a people to repentance is used for self-glorification. “You have struck them down, but they felt no anguish; You have consumed them, but they refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent” (Jeremiah 5:3). But we throw ourselves in the dust before God and say:

Christ, Thou Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy upon us! Christ, Thou Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy upon us! Christ, Thou Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us Thy peace!

Amen.

from Franz Pieper, “At Home in the House of My Fathers,” p. 612

For the Scriptures of the New Testament we have the historical witness of the Early Church (ecclesia primitiva). Its witness is unanimous as to the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter (homologoumena). But as to the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, doubts, more or less strongly expressed, were entertained (antilegomena). Eusebius in his Church History lists the homologoumena and the antilegomena.2

The historical fact that the Early Church differentiated between the homologoumena and the antilegomena cannot be changed by a resolution of the later Church. Luther, too, abides by this judgment of the primitive Church; he says, appealing to Eusebius (Church History III, 25), that in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse “had a different reputation.” He finds much excellent instruction in the antilegomena, grants that the offensive passages may be explained acceptably by “glosses,” and will keep no one from appraising them as he sees fit. But he will not class them with the “right certain chief books of the New Testament.” As for himself, he will let the doubt entertained by the Early Church remain.3 Chemnitz denounced the action of the Roman Catholic Church in declaring the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the antilegomena of the New Testament a part of the canon of Scripture by a mere decree and in anathematizing all those who refused to accept the canon fixed in the Vulgate, as anti-Christian.4

Also the fathers of the Missouri Synod recognized the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena. They did, however, leave it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena, for they were divided in their opinion regarding, e.g., the Apocalypse. In the second volume of Lehre und Wehre (1856, p. 204 ff.) the question regarding the homologoumena and the antilegomena is thoroughly ventilated in the article entitled: “Is He Who does Not Receive or Regard as Canonical All Books Contained in the Collection of the New Testament to be Declared a Heretic or Dangerous False Teacher?” Walther writes:

What induces us to discuss this question is the fact that Pastor Roebbelen in connection with the glosses on the Revelation of St. John published in the Lutheraner also stated that with Luther he does not regard the Apocalypse as canonical. This has, we are informed, given great offense in some quarters. Now, we do not agree with our dear brother Roebbelen on this point; we are convinced that this precious book, so rich in comfort for the Christians and the Church, belongs to the canon. Still, we believe that it is not fair — probably it is due to ignorance of the facts of the case — to stamp an otherwise unimpeachable theologian as a dangerous false teacher, who renders the very Word of God suspect, one who sincerely receives as canonical all homologoumena (universally accepted books), but who has his doubts as to the canonicity of one or the other of the antilegomena (disputed books). This would be thoroughly un-Lutheran. For our dear fathers in the faith, with hardly an exception till after the time of the Formula of Concord, regarded and declared all or at least some of the antilegomena as not belonging to the canon; and they did that not from hastiness or levity toward the Word of God, but, on the contrary, because they were very conscientious with regard to the Word of God. Luther’s opinions on the antilegomena are not a “blot” on our Church, but they rather bear witness how careful our Church once was in determining the standard and norm of our faith and life. The summary decrees of the Papists and the Reformed that all the antilegomena must be received as canonical by all Christians on pain of losing their salvation are so little a testimony for the high regard of these denominations for the Word of God that they rather demonstrate how easy it is for those to add something to the canon who hold that the Scriptures are to be interpreted either, in a blind collier’s faith, according to the whim of the Church (that is, of the Pope) or according to the principles of reason. It will therefore not be improper to submit here the testimony of our fathers, particularly of the 16th and the first half of the 17th century; not that we personally hold these opinions, but in order to show that doubts as to the canonicity of the disputed books were held also by men whose orthodoxy no Lutheran would dare to deny, and thus to clear a man like Luther of the suspicion that he had brazenly, in his subjective pleasure, passed judgment on books which had been received into the New Testament Canon.

Walther concludes his article with the words:

If this question be treated in a Christian manner, if the poor laymen are not confused by a dishonest presentation of the real issue, by a partisan exploitation of a matter which the common people find it hard to grasp — which may easily be done here — the discussion of the question can only serve to arouse the Christians to a serious investigation and thus to deepen and strengthen their knowledge and their faith. If any periodical takes cognizance of this our discussion, we herewith state beforehand that we shall not deem any foolish babbling, parading in the guise of a defense, of God’s Word, worthy of an answer; but any pertinent ventilation of this important subject will receive our attention, even though it pronounce ever so sharp a verdict on our old teachers, Luther, Brenz, Chemnitz, Veit Dietrich, Conrad Dietrich, etc.

In this article, Walther quotes extensively from Chemnitz, who in his Examen Concilii Tridentini exposes, in clear and powerful language, the Antichristian and insane character of the above-mentioned papal decree with its appended anathema. Because this presentation is considered a “classic” even today, we here submit it in its salient points.5

ENDNOTES

1. Baier-Walther, I, 149. Gerhard, Loci (locus “De Scriptura Sacra,” § 75 sqq.), furnishes much material on the refusal of the early Christian Church to receive the Apocrypha into the canon. Cf. Keil,Einleitung, § 216; H. L. Strack, R. E., 2d ed., VII, 442 ff.

2. Church History III, 25. On the Epistles of James and Jude particularly, II, 23. He reports, VI, 25, on the canon of Origen and the latter’s opinion of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cp. for further detail Baier-Walther, I, 150, note b. Baier says: “It can certainly not be denied that in the ancient Church there was so much doubt as to their writers that they were denied the authority proper to inspired books.” Cp. the comprehensive article “Kanon des Neuen Testaments,” by Theodor Zahn, in R. E., 3d ed., IX, 768-796.

3. See Luther’s prefaces to the epistles mentioned, St. L. XIV: 126-139. On the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, Luther says: “They are not doctrinal epistles, but examples of love and faith and breathe a truly Apostolic spirit,” loc. cit., p. 126 f.

4. Tridentinum, Sess. IV: “But if anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books [the Old Testament plus the Apocrypha, the New Testament, including the antilegomena] entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition … let him be anathema.”

5. Examen, 1667, p. 48 sqq. Walther gave a German translation of it, op. cit., pp. 205-210. It is given in the original in Baier-Walther, I, 150 sqq.

from Franz Pieper, “The Witness of History for Scripture (Homologoumena and Antilegomena).” (From Christian Dogmatics, Vol. I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], pp. 330-38.).

See also:

1. The Witness of History for Scripture
2. The Inspiration of Scripture
3. Resurrection History
4. Conference on Archives and History

But is the avoidance of all those who teach differently not an unattainable, ideal situation? Man judges this way, unlike the apostle. The apostle is not talking about an unattainable, floating in the air, and enduring in the air ideal, but of a feasible and enforceable practice, when he exhorts Christians: “mark those who cause schism and nuisance alongside the doctrine that you have learned and depart from them!” – But one exclaims: How can Christians – simple-minded Christians – recognize those who teach differently and distinguish between truth and error? Even simple Christians can do this. Their Savior, who says remain in His Word, has given them in the hand the means to do it. The Holy Scriptures, the Word of the Prophets and Apostles, is for Christians not a collection of riddles, but a lamp to their feet and a light to their path. Christians can only be wrong in their thoughts, words, and opinion, if they place the light of the Word of God under a bushel. When they use their light and right, when they hear and believe their Lord’s Words, then they know the Truth and the Truth makes them free from all bondage of human doctrine. The Lord expressly says that His sheep know their Shepherd’s voice. But the stranger’s voice they do not know, but flee before him (John 10:3-5).

Let us remind one another that when we allow the Word of Christ to dwell richly among us, then it makes wise the simple. One raises finally another [objection]: But success! Success, to set aside the separation in this way, is indeed very uncertain. One must despair of success if one looks at the past and keeps in the present survey. Success, dear fathers and brothers, is not ours, but God’s business, Who has prescribed for us this way to achieve unity and to eliminate separation. Incidentally, we must not complain about success. The Synodical Conference has worked not separately but together. It has steadily grown in spite of decline around it and it is still the most numerous Lutheran Church Fellowship in the United States. Our demise has been predicted from the start. In recent months some have repeated this prediction. It will not come true. We want to ask God primarily for two things. First, for humility. It is not our merit, but God’s grace alone, that we do not teach otherwise, but confess God’s Word. This humility is also to be felt in everything we speak and write. If we certainly are in the flesh, then we will not argue not according to the flesh. We also do not want anyone who occasionally goes astray treated immediately as a false teacher. It is no wonder, explains Luther, that someone in these high things, that we are by nature so alien, sometimes has his own thoughts and lacks some in words. Luther admits that of himself, and we will not hold back with the same confession. But we should not give in to our own thoughts, but once again take hold of God’s Word and thereby resist all our thoughts and all wrong speech. For this we should help each other in humility. Secondly, we want to ask God for mercy that we, as in sincere humility, also testify with clarity and decisiveness the doctrine of the apostles and prophets and expose and reject foreign doctrine. So we strive in the right way toward the unity of the Christian Church and toward the elimination of harmful separation. May God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, blessed forever, grant it! Amen.

from Franz Pieper, Sermon on Romans 16:17-18.

See also:

1. The Unity of the Lutheran Church
2. Gerhard on Church Unity
3. Concerning the Unity of the Lutheran Church
4. “The Evangelical Lutheran Church observes the unity of confession and love toward all who share with it the one faith.”

The schism of the time of the Reformation would not have occurred if the Christians of Zwingli and his followers, who did not stand with the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper and in Baptism, would have departed. There would be no schism in the American Lutheran Church if Christians would have kept away from people, whose own word leads on the Christian Church and the preaching office, on conversion and election unto grace. In short, avoiding those who teach differently as apostles of Christ, that is the simple and effective means prescribed by God to eliminate separation in Christendom. According to God’s Word, those who teach differently do not enter the Christian Church under God’s approval that one considers them, but for the purpose that one shuns them. As the apostle expressly inculcates:”There must be factions among you, so that those who are upright may be obvious among you” (1 Cor. 11:19).

Christians must learn this lesson continually from God’s Word. But instead of following this simple and effective way prescribed by God, one attempts humanly devised ways that go from bad to worse. In particular, one tries the way that one can forgive each other to stay in all doctrines in God’s Word. One calls this unity, what according to God’s Word is separation!

from Franz Pieper, Sermon on Romans 16:17-18.

See also:

1. Man Calls It ‘Unity’ – God’s Word Says ‘Separation!’
2. Toying with God’s Word For The Sake of Love & Unity
3. Since all Scripture is God’s Word, His majesty is also in each word
4. Gerhard on Church Unity

5. All teachings of Holy Scripture, although not equally necessary for obtaining salvation, nevertheless have a completely equal binding force on all people, since they are divine revelation to mankind. Luther says, “Absit, absit, ut ullus apex in toto Paulo sit, quem non debeat imitari et servare tota universalis ecclesia.”[^6} It is a crimen laesae majestatis divinae, an intrusion upon the divine majesty, to want to surrender a teaching which is revealed in Scripture. The principle which the “Lutheran Visitor” has made its motto and which the “Lutheran” cites in its issue from December 20th: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity,” expresses ungodliness, if under “non-essentials” in Scripture are understood revealed teachings. Some object, “It is not meant so badly!” That is certainly true. Indeed, most of those who want to follow God’s revealed Word think they are doing God a service in this. They think they act in a very God-fearing way if they urge only the acceptance of some main teachings and put the rest into the freedom of Christians. But that is a very foolish notion that does not even have the smallest basis in Scripture. God wants to be honored and feared in his Word, and certainly in every one of his words.

from Franz Pieper, “The Fear of God’s Word”

See also:

1. Knowledge of Languages is Necessary to Judge All Teachings
2. Scripture Explains Itself
3. Losing Sight of the Word of Scripture
4. The Delusion that Scripture is Obscure

Matthias Hafenreffer, professor of theology and chancellor of the university of Tuebingen (d. 1619), places this axiom of Luther at the head of his dogmatics, at the same time expanding it on the basis of Scripture and applying it to conditions of his day. Among the theologians of the last century Rudelbach (d. 1862) had this to say in an address on Luther’s instruction as to the study of theology: “You are familiar with the great word of Luther: Oratio, meditatio, tentatio faciunt theologum. This word comprises our entire theological methodology. Here, just as is the case with every thought sealed by the Spirit of God, there is nothing to add, nothing to subtract.” There can be no doubt that the distressing lack of true teachers would be quickly ended if Luther’s methodology were observed everywhere.

from Franz Pieper, “Church Dogmatics, vol. 1.″

See also:

1. Oratio, Meditatio, Tentatio!
2. The Attainment of Theological Aptitude

This corresponds to Ephesians 4:3: “Be diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit which is effected through the bond of peace.” The unity of spirit is the unity of faith which is effected by the Holy Ghost. Wherever this is present, the proper unity desired by God is also present. We are, moreover, to cultivate this unity. It is imperative for us to avoid with all caution anything which might threaten it. It is also important to keep in mind that personal motives often are at the bottom of disunity. Pastors and other official teachers in the church become hostile toward one another, and this enmity of the heart soon gives rise to separation in doctrine and belief. The Bible says: “Be diligent to keep unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” One is not merely to receive the unity of spirit as something which is brought about of itself, but it requires the application of all diligence to preserve it.

The Formula of Concord states (p.553,7):

We believe, teach, and confess also that one church should not condemn another for having fewer or more numerous outward ceremonies which are not commanded by God, if otherwise they are in agreement on ALL the same articles and properly employ the sacraments, in keeping with the well-known dictum: Dissonantia jejunii non dissolvit consantiam fidei (differences about fasting should not divide the unity of faith) [Trig., p.830].

Our confession states here what the prerequisite is for external union, namely, the agreement in doctrine on all of the same articles. “All” has been capitalized in this present quotation in order to point out that our confession has a very different understanding of church unity than the unionists of our day. The unionists today assert: If there is agreement in several of the chief articles, then many other differences can be overlooked. Our confession, however, states that while we do not require conformity of practice, because it is not commanded by God, we do nevertheless insist on doctrinal unity in all the same articles commanded by God. If we wish to acknowledge a church body as orthodox, it must be in agreement with us on all articles of doctrine.

from Franz Pieper, “The Church and Her Treasure, Twenty-third Lecture” (p.276-277).

See also:

1. Concerning the Unity of the Lutheran Church
2. Lutheran Unity without the Lutheran Confession?
3. Toying with God’s Word For The Sake of Love & Unity
4. The Unity of the Lutheran Church

If all things written in Scripture must be fulfilled, Scripture cannot be the word of man, but must be the Word of Him who holds everything in heaven and on earth in the palms of His hand, who guides all events, without whom nothing in heaven and on earth can occur, who is omnipotent and all-knowing, who is, in short, the great majestic God Himself. – Olshausen says concerning the quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are not adduced as mere corroborations drawn from humanly important writings, but as irrefutable proofs from divine books. They possesses this convincing power because they proceeded not from human sages, but from men who were moved by the Holy Ghost.

from Franz Pieper, “Church Dogmatics, vol. 1″

This method is the one which the pious king David teaches in the 119th Psalm and which, no doubt, was practiced by all the Patriarchs and Prophets. In the 119th Psalm you will find three rules, which are abundantly expounded throughout the entire Psalm. They ar called: Oratio, Meditatio, Tentatio.”

Matthias Hafenreffer, professor of theology and chancellor of the university of Tuebingen (d. 1619), places this axiom of Luther at the head of his dogmatics, at the same time expanding it on the basis of Scripture and applying it to conditions of his day. Among the theologians of the last century Rudelbach (d. 1862) had this to say in an address on Luther’s instruction as to the study of theology: “You are familiar with the great word of Luther: Oratio, meditatio, tentatio faciunt theologum. This word comprises our entire theological methodology. Here, just as is the case with every thought sealed by the Spirit of God, there is nothing to add, nothing to subtract.” There can be no doubt that the distressing lack of true teachers would be quickly ended if Luther’s methodology were observed everywhere.

from Franz Pieper, “Church Dogmatics, vol. 1″

See also:

1. Theological Aptitude Comes Through Suffering God

Above all it implies that we acknowledge the entire Holy Scripture as inspired by God, and for this reason, as God’s majestic and infallible Word. Holy Scripture itself proceeds with this claim when it says, πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (all Scripture is inspired by God), 2 Timothy 3:16. And no less than the Son of God himself also testifies in regard to the individual words of Scripture: οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή (the Scripture cannot be broken), John 10:35. The denial of the inspiration of Holy Scripture is therefore from the start the exact opposite of the fear of God’s Word. And whoever accuses Holy Scripture of error in any one part, or even just gives it up as capable of error, has abandoned the fear of God’s Word. The fear of God’s Word demands that we say with Luther, “the Scripture has not yet erred,”1 and with the Formula of Concord, “Toto pectore prophetica et apostolica scripta Veteris et Novi Testamenti ut limpidissimos purissimosque Israelis fontes recipimus ac amplectimur” (with all our heart we accept the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fount of Israel).2 Indeed, the one who fears God’s Word must also say with Quenstedt, “In canonical Holy Scripture there is no lie, no falsehood, nor even a little error, whether it is in facts or in words. Rather, each and every thing recorded in it is true, whether it may concern doctrine or morals or history, the calendar, the description of countries or names. And no ignorance, thoughtlessness and forgetfulness, no errors of memory can or may be ascribed to the instruments of Holy Spirit in the recording of the Holy Scriptures” (Didactic-Polemic Theology I. 112).

However, some in recent times think that the fear of God’s Word and the fear of Holy Scripture are two different things. But John Gerhard says quite rightly that there is no essential difference between God’s Word and Holy Scripture.3 Holy Scripture is God’s Word, and God’s Word is Holy Scripture. All the words of Holy Scripture are God’s words because they are inspired by God. In Holy Scripture God has become man in his speaking. And as God approaches men in his incarnate Son, and consequently all are to honor the Son as they honor the Father, and whoever does not honor the Son also does not honor the Father, so also there is no honor and fear of God and his Word except that which is given to Holy Scripture. It is great blindness when those who want to deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture and distinguish between Scripture and God’s Word still think they stand in the true fear of God and his Word. But it is a sad fact that even the theologians of Germany, who call themselves Lutheran and have a good reputation, almost unanimously deny with complete determination that Holy Scripture is the majestic and infallible Word of God inspired by God. Instead of bowing down before every word of Scripture as before the majesty of God himself, they make Scripture into an object of criticism. Yes, as the Jewish scribes and Pharisees once pronounced those who believe in Christ as the Son of God to be wrong and deceived (John 7), so one of the “scribes” of our time has declared that those who still regard Holy Scripture as God’s infallible Word are hardening themselves against the truth.4 Unfortunately, this total renunciation of the fundamental principle of Lutheran church has spread far, particularly in Germany. Yes, it has come so far that some see the church’s salvation in surrendering the doctrine of inspiration.5 It can only improve in this part of the church if this dreadful injury is removed, if the deceivers and the deceived accept Scripture as God’s Word again and thus turn back to the true fear of God’s Word.

Yet the fear of God’s Word entails not only that we acknowledge Holy Scripture as God’s infallible Word, but second, it includes regarding and accepting all teachings of Scripture as binding. Again, it is the exact opposite of the fear of God’s Word to want to take a selection of the doctrines revealed in Scripture according to the importance attached to the individual doctrines and to accept and inculcate the doctrines that are seen as important, but to surrender the doctrines that are seen as less important, that is, to declare as less important those doctrines which individual Christians and Christian congregations can accept or reject. It is always blasphemy if someone does not want to recognize an important or less important law of a king as binding.

from Franz Pieper, “Fear of God’s Word”

See also:

1. What’s In A Word? – Fear
2. Fear of God
3. Have no Fear Little Flock
4. Since all Scripture is God’s Word, His majesty is also in each word

It will, therefore, never do for the theologian to retreat from the Word of the Apostles and Prophets and to seek refuge in the theological Ego. In theology it is absolutely necessary that the theologian disqualify his own Ego. The theologian must disregard all thoughts and opinions of his own, which come to him as unwelcome guests; he will permit only such thoughts, words, and doctrines to make their abode in his heart as are found in Christ’s Word.

from Franz Pieper, “Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1″

See also:

1. Two Ways of Being a Theologian
2. The Theologian of the Cross
3. On Being a Theologian of the Cross
4. Walther as Theologian

from Franz Pieper, “1912 Sermon on Romans 16:17-18.”

The reason why Romish theologians are so insensate as to deny this fact is that they desire to suppress the authority of Holy Scripture and instead thereof to magnify the importance of the “oral traditions,” which they themselves have fabricated. This is the object also of those modern Protestant theologians who deny the inspiration of the Bible and hold that it was an accidental circumstance that occasioned the apostles to pen their epistles.

They, too, wish to evade the authority of Holy Scripture, and so they agree: The apostles were prompted to write their epistles merely by certain conditions that existed in the various congregations at that time, and accordingly their writings cannot be regarded as the rule and standard for the Church through the ages until Judgment Day. The Epistle to the Romans, they maintain, “happened” to be written by St. Paul to the Christian congregation in Rome on account of the fact that he had not yet had the opportunity to visit the city. (Cf. Rom. 1, 13ff)

Similarly, they say, the apostle wrote his letters to the Corinthians because he “happened” to hear from members of Chloe’s household that contentions had arisen in the Corinthian church. But any one who terms these causes “accidental” and intends to prove thereby that the word of the apostles is not the source and norm of the Christian faith for the Church of all times in the final analysis is compelled to deny also that there is a God whose hand directs all such “accidental circumstances.”

Christ declares expressly that all Christians until the Day of Judgment are to be taught by means of the word of the apostles, John 17, 20.

from Franz Pieper, “What Is Christianity?”

See also:

1. The Inspiration of Scripture

Mr. Thomas Kane of Chicago for the past few years has sent to the theological seminaries of our country at his own expense books and other literature which exhort all Christians to dedicate the tenth part of their income to the support of God’s kingdom. Mr. Kane shows on the basis of reliable statistics that those congregations and individual Christians that tithe have contributed to their Church as much as five and ten times more than before. We do not doubt that Mr. Kane’s figures are correct: in fact, we are fully convinced that all our financial troubles would be over if we, too, would pay the tithe to Christ and His kingdom. In two of his articles Mr. Kane reproves theological professors for not insisting sufficiently on the practice of tithing, and he makes the unqualified accusation that they and the ministers of our churches are the real cause of all the financial troubles in the Church.

How shall we answer Mr. Kane’s assertion? We do not obligate New Testament Christians to pay the tithe, since, as we rightly contend, this would go counter to Scripture. In the Old Testament indeed it was God’s will and order that the tithe should be given by every Israelite; but this divine command is not binding upon New Testament believers.  The New Testament contains much instruction about Christian giving, but there is not a single passage in which New Testament Christians are commanded to pay tithes.  Now, since the tithe has not been ordained by Christ, neither the Church in general nor any Christian as an individual has nay right to demand it. We must adhere strictly to this standpoint, in opposition to the Papacy and all enthusiasts. We must stand fast in the liberty where-with Christ hath made us free fro the ceremonial requirements of the Old Testament.

On the other hand, however, we must also bear in mind the Scriptural warning that the liberty which Christ has merited for us must not be used for a cloak to hide our sins. Although the tithe is not commanded in the New Testament, it is, and always will remain, the will and command of God that all New Testament Christians consecrate themselves with all they possess to Christ and contribute most willingly to all the needs of the Church.

This is the clear doctrine of Holy Scripture. Through faith in the Gospel, Christians have been translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Christ, the Christian Church. When they enter this kingdom, they bring with them all they possess: body and soul with all their talents and also all their earthly goods.

from Franz Pieper, “What Christians Believe.”

See also:

1. Preaching of God’s Word by Christian Women
2. Languages Are Necessary in the Christian Church
3. The Supremacy of the “Christian I”
4. True Christian Worship