This translation was first presented in the Husker Lutheran of
University Lutheran Chapel, Lincoln, NE in 1989 and has now been entirely reviewed and
revised.
PART I - September 1, 1844
A. Is it wrong to use such a name?
Isn't it wrong to use the name "Lutheran"? We did not shy from giving our
periodical the title "the Lutheran" and so we consider it our duty to give
answer to those who might ask us what this name means and why we would use it. There have
been many people at all times, as we well know, that have been offended that the Lutheran
Church should be named after Luther, or any man. 'Why', they ask, 'can't everyone see in
light of this that this church could not be the true church of Christ but instead only the
work of a man, a sect?’ 'Indeed,' says another, 'you Lutherans should read what St.
Paul says about such names of men. In 1 Corinthians 1 and 3 he says: "it has been
reported to me that there is discord among you. I am speaking of the fact that among you
one says: I am of Paul! and another, I am of Apollo! and a third, I am of Christ! How can
this be? Is Christ divided. Has Paul been crucified for you? Or are you baptized in the
name of Paul? -- So one says: I am of Paul! the other, I am of Apollo! Are you then not
fleshly? Who is Paul and who is Apollo? They are servants through whom you believed."
Are you listening, Lutherans? It is cried out to us: Don't you do the same thing the holy
apostle condemns here in Corinthians when you name yourselves Lutherans? You continuously
say that one should always follow the letter of the Scripture precisely, then why do you
not do so here?
There are not a few honest Lutherans who become quite embarrassed when this is said to
them by our opponents. But this accusation is so fictitious, that it will be shown to be
without basis as soon as we consider the matter more closely. First, it is a mistake if it
is believed that Lutherans took this name for themselves. History reports to us instead
that they were first given this name by their opponents in order to insult them. Dr. Eck,
who held that well known disputation with Luther in Leipzig, was the first to call those
who held to Luther's teaching by that name. We see clearly what Luther thought of this in
a writing which he completed in 1522: "Admonition Against Insurrection," in
which he says among other things:
I ask that my name be left silent and people not call themselves Lutheran, but rather
Christians. Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St.
Paul in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul
or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the
children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us
extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have. The pope's
men rightly have a factious name because they are not satisfied with the doctrine and name
of Christ and want to be with the pope, who is their master. I have not been and will not
be a master. Along with the church I have the one general teaching of Christ who alone is
our master. Matt. 23:8.
This judgment of Luther is as clear as the sun. he did not want in any way that the
church should be named after him and even less did he want this to happen for his own
glory.
Let no one imagine that in and of itself it is wrong when Christians let themselves be
named after a man. This is shown undeniably by the fact that the church of the Old
Testament was named by God himself after a man. What did He call them? - the Israelites.
Didn't Christ himself say of Nathaniel: "See, a true Israelite, in whom there is
nothing false." What was Israel? He was a man. Therefore it is clear, it depends on
the sense in which the children of God are named after a man. In that alone can there be
sin. In which sense and on what grounds did the Corinthians name themselves of Paul, of
Apollo, of Safes, of Christ? In this fashion, as we can read, they wanted to separate
themselves from one another. Although Paul, Apollo, and Peter (or Safes) taught one and
the same thing, the Corinthians rejected the others when they chose one. They separated
themselves from one another by taking on a name and setting up factions. The sin for which
Paul rebukes the Corinthians exists not only in that they named themselves after a man but
instead that by doing this among those who had the same orthodox doctrine they wanted to
establish divisions. Therefore the apostle himself rejects the name "of Christ"
as the name of a sect (which some of them were using) when they wanted to establish
division with it. Paul does this even though this last name is not taken from a man but
from the Son of God himself. Now true Lutherans have never named themselves after Luther
in this forbidden sense. With this their name they have never wanted to depart or separate
from other orthodox teachers. They declare their allegiance as Lutherans to Athenasius and
all true teachers of the Gospel in all times and lands just as much as to Luther. Luther
himself was far from wanting to be the only true teacher. He publicly writes among other
things about a friend, the Würtemburg theologian Brentius: "I value your books so
highly that my books entirely stink when I compare them to your books and those like them.
I am not mocking you here. I am not dreaming and I am not saying something to insult you.
I will not be deceived by my judgment, for I am not praising Brentius, but the Spirit that
is in you is much friendlier, and full of love and joy than the spirit in me."
Certainly no one speaks this way if he is trying to lead a sect. But Luther speaks this
way because he wants to be nothing more than a witness of the truth.
Therefore, we do not call ourselves Lutherans after him in the same way that we are
called Christians on account of Christ. We are not called such because we believe in
Luther. As highly as we treasure this vigorous witness, in our church we still do not
accept so much as a word in matters of faith simply because Luther said it. Rather, we
accept his words only in the instance that it can be shown written clearly in the Word of
God. We do not accept him as any apostle or prophet but rather we know that he was subject
to error and sin like other men. He is not the head of our church. He is not our pope.
Therefore whoever accepts everything in blind faith simply because Luther said it is
separated from the true Lutheran church as far as earth is from heaven and day is from
night. In this manner then Luther wrote to Melanchthon in 1530 who was at the Imperial
Council in Augsburg [confessing the Lutheran faith to the Emperor and the Roman Catholic
Church, tr.]: "It does not please me in your letter that you write that you have me
as the head of this matter and have followed it on account of my reputation. I do not want
to direct or command anything, nor will I be called the author. And even if someone might
find some kind of correct understanding in using that word I do not want it. Isn't this
matter likewise yours and does it not fit you as well as me, therefore one may not say
that it is mine." Just as Luther refused any improper esteem in the church so our
church has not improperly honored him. Just as it says in the beginning of the Formula of
Concord, which is one of the most important public confession of the orthodox Lutherans:
We believe teach, and confess that the one rule and guide, according to which all
doctrine and teachers should be judged is the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old
and new Testaments alone. Other writings of old and new teachers whatever their name
should not be considered equal to the holy Scriptures, but rather all of them together one
with another are subject to it and together are taken only as witnesses of how much and at
which places after the time of the apostles such doctrine of the apostles and prophets
were kept.
So finally we ask ourselves, do we call ourselves Lutherans in order to show that we
cling to a new doctrine which Luther first 300 years ago brought forward? And do we
thereby show that we want to belong to a new church, which was instituted by itself? May
that never be so! We name ourselves not at the Arians are named after Arius, or as the
Dominicans after Dominicus. Luther did not preach any new doctrine but rather the ancient
doctrine of the eternal gospel. He did not stray from the ancient true church, which is
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the
Cornerstone. He only left, yes, actually was thrown out, of that church which had fallen
and misused the name of the 'catholic' church in order to bind the conscience with their
laws of men. To show this thoroughly is the very goal we had in mind when we started this
publication. In the first place we refer our readers to only one witness of Luther
himself, from which it is clear to see that he did not intend to spread his own human
ideas but rather was driven by the Word of God. so among other things he says at the close
of his splendid Church postil:
Oh, that God would, that the explanation of God's Word by me and all teachers would
perish and each Christian would take up the nude Scriptures. You see form this my prattle,
how unlike God's Word is compared to the word of all men, how no man is able to properly
attain and illumine one of God's words by all of his own words. My and all other
explanations of men would be nothing, yes, only a hindrance to him who can enter it
without glosses and explanations. Therefore, go in, go in dear Christian. And leave my and
all other explanations be a mere step unto the real building, so that we may cling to the
nude clear Word of God itself, taste it and remain there, for God lives only in Zion.
Even Luther's most bitter enemy must agree that it was the holy Scriptures above all
that he insisted upon and spread among the people. To prove this I will bring forward only
one quote from the writings of a Roman Catholic author, a certain Florenumdus Raemundus,
who otherwise wrote entirely against the Protestants and had taken part in the persecution
of them. He said in his "History of the Origin etc. of the Heresies of the 16th
Century":
The common people concerned themselves (in Luther's time) mostly with the bible, which
was translated into the mother language. It was seen in the houses and lay upon the
tables. The common worker had the Bible in his work place and the women lay it upon their
knees. The entire world busied itself with the reading of the Bible. The sects which were
armed with these books, whenever they came upon a priest or someone from another spiritual
order, immediately began an argument with these books. One demanded that he should be
shown from Scripture the mass, another purgatory, another infant baptism, another the
Trinity. Finally they wanted all articles of faith to be proven with express Words, and
rejected the unwritten Word of god and the apostolic precepts. For the arch heretic Luther
had taught: The Scripture (and he authorized everyone to explain it) is alone the judge of
all arguments in religion.
Who could have given a more delightful picture of the awakening of a new life through
the old truth in the time of the Reformation and who could defend Luther better against
the complaint that he brought forward new doctrine than this zealous follower of the
people? Let us hear Luther himself as to whether Luther despised the true church and
wanted to create a new church. he wrote among other things in 1532 "Against Certain
Mob Spirits":
I would rather allow the wisdom and laws not only of all mob spirits but also of all
emperors, kings and princes to witness against me, than hear or see one iota or tittle of
the entire Christian church against me. Indeed, one should not jest with articles of the
faith, which were held in unison from the beginning wherever Christianity was found. That
is not like jesting with the laws of the pope or the emperor, or other human traditions of
the fathers or councils.
From this one sees that Luther in no way despised the church as is so often said, but
rather that he was an obedient son of it. As little as Luther followed the reputation of
any man, yet he did not want in any way to stand on his own feet on a false way in dark
self-centeredness as so many have done. He believed that through all the centuries there
had remained an orthodox church. He then asked above all how that church had taught at all
times. The witness of the true church and agreement with it especially mattered to him. He
considered her to be a pillar and foundation of the truth [1 Tim. 3:15] and wanted to
follow it and be a member of the whole great army of the orthodox teachers of the church
from the time of the Apostles until his time. That one must hear and obey the church (Mat.
18:7), was never denied by Luther. That is not the matter of contention which of old has
been argued between the Lutheran and Roman churches. But the question is instead whether
one must obey those who take the authority of the church as their own because they have
the office of the church among them but use it to command something which is contrary to
the Gospel. that is what
Luther denied. He maintained that if one should not hear the voice of Christ he would
also not hear the voice of his bride, his true church. Instead such a one would have the
false prophets, who carry the name of the church as if in sheep's clothing under which
they try to conceal the ravaging wolf. Luther departed from these false prophets, who
would not allow a true reformation, but not form the Church.
PART II - September 23, 1844
B. What does it mean to be a Lutheran?
In the last section we showed that we have not given ourselves the name
"Lutherans' and that we also do not use the name in such a way that it is sinful. We
showed that we allow ourselves to be called Lutherans not because we want this name to
separate us from other orthodox believers like the Corinthians did and further not because
our faith is based upon Luther and finally not because we want to show that we confess a
new doctrine and new church, a sect.
This begs the question then: In what sense do we truly call ourselves Lutheran? In
brief we answer: Using this name indicates nothing else than that we are Christens who
believe that the doctrine which was again brought to light in these lasts times from God's
word through Luther, is the true doctrine. Whomever confesses this doctrine with his mouth
we call a Lutheran. But we believe a true Lutheran is only he who believes this doctrine
with his heart through the working of the Holy Spirit and who has the mystery of the faith
in a pure conscience. A true Lutheran and a true Christian, the Lutheran church and the
Christian church, God's word and Luther's doctrine - these are all one and the same to us.
Therefore with joy and confidence we make that well known verse our proclamation:
"God's Word and Luther's Doctrine, now and forevermore." We don't mean by this
that Luther spoke and wrote as an apostle from immediate enlightening of the Holy Spirit.
But we do want to give witness that Luther's doctrine as we have perceived it is drawn
from God's Word and that also through him the reformation of the church, which everyone
knows was necessary, was accomplished. As Luther himself once advised the Lutheran who in
1528 were required by Duke George to give answer for their faith: "They want to
remain with the holy gospel - Luther himself will not be Lutheran if he does not purely
teach the holy Scripture." (Werke, Halle, XXI, 234).
We know well what we should expect in these days when explaining that with the
strongest conviction of the heart we believe that the Lutheran church is the true church
of Jesus Christ on earth. The most gentle of our opponents will say: "Indeed, we
believe the Lutheran church is a church but not the church of Christ. But the belief that
there are more true churches we leave to those who can never be sure of their doctrine
whenever in their consciences they feel guilty of false doctrine. These people quietly
comfort themselves with that sweet dream of many true churches and thereby strive to
appease their shrieking consciences. Yes, we leave it to them to publicly confess that
they see themselves not as the church of Christ but only as a set. We ourselves, however,
give thanks to God that he as brought us to fellowship in his true church and made us
certain and joyful to confess before all the world that we belong to her and not to a
sect.
But perhaps now many will say: "We hear that! We've hear that language before!
Those who belong to the sects speak just like that. In fact that is the most certain sign
of a sect that they are so isolated that they make themselves into the only church that
can save and damn everyone who has a different faith. So we can see that you Lutherans are
true brazen papists. Isn't the belief in a particular church as the only-saving church a
fundamental doctrine of the papists? See, you give yourself away!" We ask everyone
who would make this objection not to be hasty in their judgment and first let us explain.
Wait until we explain our true meaning and you have given it careful consideration.
We are in no way so fanatical and so narrow in recognizing the hidden kingdom of Christ
that we would think that it consists only of those who call themselves Lutheran. Never! We
know that this church is not contained within the boudoirs of a human name, a country, or
a time. Instead it encompasses the entire inheritance of Jesus Christ. It is for this
reason that our church is so great and glorious to us; for this reason we want to do or
small part and give public witness, pray, fight and remain with her until our last breath
despite all insult that is laid upon her.
In the first place, the Lutheran church is not restricted to those who from youth have
held this name or even to those who took it up later in life. We extend our hand to
everyone who submits himself to the written word of God without guile and who carries the
true faith in our dear Lord Jesus Christ in his heart and confesses it before the world.
We consider such a one as our partner in faith (Glaubensgenossen), as our brother in
Christ, as a member of our church, as s Lutheran, no matter in what sect he lies hidden
and entangled. We well know that God can keep for himself thousands of his children even
where everything appears to be devoured by Baal worship. (1 Ki 19:9-18). We know that God
is so powerful that God's children are also born where this word is only preached very
sparsely and mixed with many doctrines of man, indeed, that Christ rules in the midst of
his enemies (Ps. 110:2). We therefore condemn no man no matter what he calls himself but
instead merely proclaim that divine judgment: "Whoever believes and is baptized will
be saved. Whoever does not believe, he will be damned." It is one thing if it is
asked: "How is the church recognized and where is she seen?" It is another to
ask: "Where is the church?" We answer the first question: "She is
recognized by the pure preaching of God's word and by the right use of the holy
sacraments." The second we answer: 'The Church is the congregation of all believers.
(See the Augsburg Confession VII and VIII). Therefore in the forward to the symbolical
books of the evangelical Lutheran Church our forefathers say among other things:
With reference to the condemnations, censures, and rejections of false and adulterated
doctrine, especially in the article concerning the Lord's Supper, ... it is not our
purpose and intention to mean thereby those persons who err from a certain simplicity and
who do not blaspheme the truth of the divine Word, and far less do we mean entire churches
... On the contrary, we mean specifically to condemn only false and seductive doctrines
and their stiff-necked teachers and blasphemers. ... We have no doubt at all that one can
find many pious, innocent people even in those churches which have up to now admittedly
not come to agreement with us in all things. These people follow their own simplicity and
do not understand the issues but in no way approve the blasphemies which are cast against
the Holy Supper. ... We also have great hope that , if they would be taught correctly
concerning all these things, the Spirit of the Lord aiding them, they would agree with us
and with our churches and schools to the infallible truth of God's word.
In this sense, therefore, it says in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession in the 27th
Article "Concerning Monastic Vows" : We do not say this in reference to all.
There may be some in the monasteries who know the holy gospel of Christ and do not set any
holiness upon their traditions." Luther agrees with this in his private writings. He
shows not only that God kept for himself a holy seed of his children in the darkest times
of the rule of the pope but also that even now after the progress of the evangelical light
through the Reformation there are righteous souls held in papal chains who are members of
the true church. To bring forth just one example, he says in his explanation of Genesis
28:17: "The pope and his crowd are not the church. When it is objected: Do they not
still have baptism and the Lord's Supper? etc. I answer: "Those who have the pure
word and baptism belong to us and the true church. Those however who keep the religious
pomp of human statures are not the church. Although they have the text of the gospel, they
have it in vain." Luther makes the same judgment concerning sincere people who
according to external fellowship belong to other sects. He writes in his letter
"Concerning Rebaptism" (Werke, Halle, XVII., 2675): "We must confess that
the enthusiasts have the Scripture and God's Word in other articles. Whoever hears and
believes it form them will be saved eve though they are unholy heretics and blasphemers of
Christ."
Likewise the old Lutheran theologians never denied this basic tenet that not only those
are to be considered Lutherans who call themselves by that name. They always taught that
there were innumerable people who carry the name in pretense who through their fleshly
ways show that they are not members of the true church, not members of the spiritual body
of Jesus Christ, not true Christians. Further they always taught that there are
innumerable others who have never called themselves Lutheran and who still are true
Christians and therefore Lutherans in fact and in truth. Of all the many witnesses which
could be brought forth here one will suffice. In 1573 the Reformed in Frankreich
(generally called the Huguenots) suffered the most dreadful persecutions from the papists
and during the infamous bloodbath of Paris in the span of two months 70,000 of them were
murdered with unheard-of satanic cruelty. N. Seneccer, a Lutheran theologian (known for
his glorious Hymn: All Glory be to God on High), who was one of the authors of the Formula
do Concord and who was dispelled from Leipzig through the machinations of the Reformed
wrote the following judgment:
Indeed in the persecutions, which occurred in Frankreich, the Netherlands and other
places, many innocent people were miserably slaughtered on account of religion and many
even out of the masses who are Sacramentarians were found to be martyrs with whom even a
heart of stone must rightly have compassion. but, dear God!, they all died as Lutherans,
not on account of their doctrine of the Holy Supper, but because they would not worship
the horror of the pope. Therefore in their need God stood by them and recalled them to
himself with joy and comfort. He covered up their weakness and delusion in regard to the
holy Supper wherein they had been placed and mislead. He showed them patience. Our holy
God always turns the fault and need of his believers, which is not defended deliberately
out of stubbornness, into that which is best." (Se: Brev. resp. ad crimen Danaei).
Thus speaks a man who rejected the false doctrine of the Reformed to the utmost.
However here he shows that he was motivated not by a desire to condemn and by a sectarian
spirit but rather from a love of truth. Although Lutherans are usually accused of
intolerance, narrowness, and love of condemning people on account of their rejection of
all false doctrine, no one deserves this accusation less. For if they have the name
rightly they never restrict the true church to those who use this name.
Even less do we believe that the church to which we belong is confined to some
particular land or some particular time. With the name "Lutheran" we confess
that we belong tot he true catholic (universal) church, whose doctrine Luther preached. In
our public confessional writings it is clearly said concerning this:
In the creed it is a comforting article where it says: 'I believe in a catholic
universal Christian church.’ This shows that no one should think that the church is
like other external political bodies bound to this or that land, realm, or class of people
as the people of Rome likes to say. Instead it is certain truth that that group and those
people who are spread out there and there in the world from the east to the west, who
truly believe in Christ, who then have one gospel, one faith, one baptism and sacrament,
who are ruled by one Holy Spirit are the true church. This even thought they may have
different ceremonies (See the Apology Art. 7).
Luther witnesses to the same thing with these words:
The church is not only under the Roman church or the pope but instead in the whole
world just as the prophets have proclaimed that the gospel of Christ would come into all
the world (Psalm 2:19). The church bodily is spread out under the pope, the Turk, the
Persians, the tartars and everywhere else. But spiritually Christendom is gathered in one
gospel and faith, under one head which is Jesus Christ." (See the appendix to the
large Confession of 1528).
We can not go on without bringing forth one more quotation of Luther in order to give
verification that a sectarian view of the church was entirely foreign to him. Concerning
Galatians 1:2 he says:
Therefore the church is holy even where the fanatics are dominant, so long as they do
not deny the Word and the Sacraments; If they deny these, they are no longer the church.
Wherever the substance of the Word and the sacraments abides, therefore there the holy
church is present, even though Antichrist may reign there, for he takes his seat not in a
stable of fiends or in a pigpen or in a congregation of unbelievers but in the highest and
holiest place possible, namely, in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). From this it is
certain and obvious that God's temple must be and remain even under spiritual tyrants who
rule and storm. For above all, even under the tyrants, the right faith etc. is found.
Therefore a short and easy answer can be given to the question: the church is everywhere
in the entire world if only the gospel and the sacraments are there. But the Jews, Turks,
enthusiasts and mob spirits or heretics are not the church. For these deny and destroy
such things.
What has been said concerning the church being restricted to some particular place can
also be said concerning being restricted to some particular time. As long as there has
been an orthodox church on earth there has also been a Lutheran church. She is (as strange
as it may seem) as old as the world for she has no other doctrine than the patriarchs, the
prophets, and apostles received from God and preached. It is true the name
"Lutheran" was first used some 300 years ago but not the thing itself which is
indicated by the name. When we are asked so often: 'Where was the Lutheran church before
Luther?', it is very easy to answer: 'Everywhere there were still Christians who believed
with their hearts in Jesus Christ and in his word who would not allow themselves to be
diverted by any human regulations from the one faith that alone saves. Or at least in the
end at the time of death they took refuge in this faith. The Roman Catholics admit against
their will that our doctrine is not new but instead was confessed before Luther in all
places. Incessantly they have accused us by saying the Lutheran doctrine is only the
rewarmed heresy of the Waldenites, the Albigenites and the Hussites. Reinerius writes
concerning how old and how widespread the doctrine of these groups was and of what their
supposed heresy truly consisted. He first pretended to be a Waldenite and entered the
ranks of their preachers and then finally became the general inquisitor against the
heretics. he reports:
Among all the sects there are now or ever have been there is none more pernicious to
the church (of the pope) than that of the Poor from Lion (This is what Waldenites were
called), and for two reasons. First, because no heresy is older than this one. For some
say that they have existed since Sylvester's time and others say since the time of the
apostles. Second, because none is more universally distributed as this one for there is
almost no land in which this sect has not established itself undetected. Third, while all
other sects arouse an abhorrence against God with their open wickedness the Waldenites and
Lugdunites alone on the other hand have a great appearance of holiness because they live
right before men and believe rightly concerning god and accept all the articles which are
contained in the Creed. They hate and mock the Roman church alone and say that it is a
church of the godless and the prostitute who in Revelation sits on the beast. They say
that she fell in the time of Sylvester when the poison of temporal worldly things entered
into the church. They also say that the pope is the head of all error and is full of the
desire for glory and money.
With this the Roman Catholics themselves admit that such witnesses for the apostolic
faith and against the unapostolic papacy have always existed and the confess that Luther
merely once again brought forth the doctrines of these witnesses of the truth. And so they
confess openly that the Lutheran church had her members even before Luther even in the
midst of the papacy. For with the church it is a matter of doctrine and not the name.
PART III - October 5, 1844
C. Why do we continue to keep this name?
In the first articles under this name we claimed that according to his own explanation
Luther did not want the disciples of Christ to name themselves after him and further that
not only those people were Lutheran who carried the name explicitly but instead that all
true Christians are included in the name Lutheran whether they are called Lutheran,
Catholic, Reformed, Evangelical, Methodists etc. Therefore perhaps the question will now
arise: "Under such circumstances how can you still adhere to the Lutheran name? How
can you in good conscience still keep a name which serves to separate you from others when
you protest so strongly against the accusation of ecclesiastical division and
sectarianism?" - It is time to clearly speak to this point.
First, we answer this question with another question: How should we name ourselves in
order to do what is right? It is certain that the name of a church can not merely be some
meaningless title but that it should accurately express what she truly is, namely, what
she believes, teaches and confesses. If we do not want to be hypocritical, the name under
which we proceed would give a plain clear answer to the question: "Of what and of
whose faith are you?"
Certainly some will now say: Why don't you call yourselves Christians? We answer: we do
use that name. And we hold this name so near and dear that we are willing to offer blood
and life for this name. We became Christians already in baptism and that and nothing else
is our highest comfort and peace. whoever is not a Christian and yet is a Lutheran and
wishes to lose the first name in favor of the second does not know the meaning of either
name. With pleasure we remember a verse found in Young's Nightly Devotions:
A Christian! What a noble name! The most lofty title a man can have! And yet men wipe
you, O holy cross, form their brow as the most shameful of marks? shaking (their head) the
angels see this as they ever tremble. They fly back from the lost and who know whether it
is more from astonishment or from sadness that they here quit their office in despair.
Indeed there was a time when it was enough to say: "I am a Christen." This
was sufficient to confess the true faith in one's heart especially in the first three
hundred years of the Christian era. Such confessor indeed often awaited the death of a
martyr. So what are the special circumstances now with this name? Since Christianity is
split into a thousand sects who would know what we believe if we merely wanted to confess:
We are Christians! Are there not many who want to be known as Christians who even deny
Christ and struggle against him denying his eternal deity and completely sufficient
redemption? Are there not many who put themselves forward as preachers of the gospel only
on account of greed who indeed no longer believe in Christ and his holy word but who want
to keep the old tradition of going to church? Indeed a man would need no other name than
the name "Christian" in order to confess his faith if everyone was as honorable,
or rather as audacious and impudent, as certain Mr. Oludwig in New York and a certain Mr.
Kock in St. Louis. For these have publicly acknowledged an irreplaceable contempt toward
the Crucified and ceremoniously erased themselves for the list of those who want to have a
part of the redemption of the Son of God. No other name would be needed, I say, if
everyone in our days who wanted to depart from the word of Christ so clearly acknowledged
the matter and would renounce the Christian name. But now since the enemies of Christ
adorn themselves with this name in order to eat his bread everyone can see that a time has
come in which the friend of Christ must clearly declare himself if he does not want to
deny his beloved Savior before the world.
Now perhaps others will say: "So you don't want that! Fine, then call yourselves
Catholic. But to this suggestion we say: God forbid! Indeed the laughable accusation is
often made against Lutherans that they are very much like the Catholics. but who was it
that first in public writings truly attacked the Roman papacy as the chair of the
antichrist. revealed it to all the world, mortally wounded and killed it? Was it Zwingli?
Was it Calvin? Was it Wesley? Wasn't it our Luther? Did not all other true and supposed
reformers continue the attack on the enemy from within the fortress which Luther had taken
in the heat of battle? How could Lutherans call themselves "Catholic" when the
archenemy of the Lutheran church calls himself by this name so that with this beautiful
name he might hold captive the consciences of the souls freed by Christ? For indeed the
name "Catholic" is a glorious name for it means the universal Christian church
which was established by the apostles and spread out upon all the earth outside of which
there is no salvation. Obviously no one can be a Christian who would not confess himself
as belonging to the church which is catholic or universal in the truth. And there was a
time when the true church used this name and with this name separated herself from all
false doctrines and their sects. And it has a glorious sound. How wonderful the name
catholic sounds. For example, in the mouth of Athenasius or Augustine when they use it
against the sects of the Arian, the Donatists and others. How glorious the name rings in
the time of the Roman bishop Gregory the Great who completely rejected the title of the
universal bishop of Christianity. Gregory wrote to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria among
other things: "You allowed a haughty designation in the title of your letter in that
you grant me the title of the universal pope. I ask that hence forth you do no such
thing." (L. VIII. ep. 30). In another place this Roman bishop (who died in 604 AD)
wrote that until his time no Roman bishops had been willing to carry this title for fear
that the true faith would be lost and a bishop would become the forerunner of the
antichrist. While the bishops of Rome still wrote in this manner and were appalled that by
accepting the title of universal bishop over all Christianity Christ, who is the true head
of the entire church, would be robbed of his honor - at that time there was still a true
church which called itself the catholic or universal church. But what is the meaning of
the word "Catholic Church" now? It is the fellowship of those who recognize the
bishop of Rome as the head of the church, as standing in the place of Christ and God
himself. They recognize him as infallible and give his commands unconditional obedience.
They must therefore worship all the unquestionable errors of the papacy such as: the
sacrifice of the Mass, praying to the saints, purgatory, the worship of images and relics,
the pope's indulgence, human works unto salvation and self chosen works, the forbidding of
the bible and marriage, tradition or the unwritten Word of God, compulsory fasts etc. etc.
which all the confessions and catechisms of the new Roman Catholic Church teach along with
the explicit explanation that outside of this faith no one can be saved. (Prof. fid. cath.
e Conc. Trid. a S.P. Pio IV extracta, No. 28) Since from this it is now clear that the
name "Catholic" has a new meaning, namely the Roman papacy with all its
atrocities and in no way the universal Christian Church, and thus indicates a sect,
obviously no one who recognizes the Word of God as the true rule of the Christian faith
can trouble us to use this name.
Perhaps another will say: OK, then call yourself Reformed. For that is indeed what you
want to be, a church cleansed of all false doctrines and wrong practices. It is true that
this name too when understood in accordance with the original meaning of the word
gloriously shows what the Lutheran church claims itself to be. She even calls herself such
in her symbols. But would it be honorable to use a name which originally indicated what we
intended but which now has an entirely different meaning and would be understood entirely
differently? Wouldn't we then be committing the sin of having a secret reservation taking
our own words to mean something different than everyone understood them? God preserve us
from such a thing! An honest man must speak in such a way that he reveals the true sense
of his heart with his words. The character of the true church has therefore been the
utmost honesty. All false churches have attempted to draw as near as possible to the
orthodox confession in their expressions in order that their erring ideas might be
craftily covered up and they then can keep secret reservations (as to the meaning).
Therefore the church spoke all the more clearly and wrote and confessed her doctrines more
precisely and distinctively because this became more necessary as time went on if she
didn't want to be misunderstood. But what is understood now by the name "Reformed
church"? It identifies the fellowship of those who have accepted the ideas of Zwingli
and Calvin. The so-called Reformed confess that through baptism a man is not born again;
it is merely a sign and seal of grace but not a means of grace. The name
"Reformed" also refers to those who confess that the holy Supper is merely a
meal of remembrance in which the body and blood of Christ are not eaten at all according
to Zwingli and only spiritually according to Calvin. But in no way is it truly present (as
Christ says) and therefore it is not eaten sacramentally with the mouth. the name
"Reformed" further refers to those who confess that God predestined some to
salvation and others to damnation according to and absolute decree. For it says in the
most important public confession of the Calvinistic-reformed church, namely, in the Synod
of Dort: The Reformed churches teach that the reason why God chose some and passed by the
others" (rejected them ) is not their unrepentance and their lack of faith, but
rather only the pleasure of God." (Syn. Dord. p. 535). Further in this confession it
says: "it was entirely the free decree of God that Christ should truly redeem from
every people, clan, race and every tongue those and indeed those alone who were elected
from eternity." (Cap. 2, Art. 8). Who is not alarmed that this is really the doctrine
of the Reformed church? Indeed , might no many who call themselves Reformed be alarmed
when they read this, those who did not suspect that their church sometimes openly,
sometimes secretly taught such errors in their public confessions. The Reformed church
contradicts the clear words of Christ concerning the holy sacraments. For Christ speaks
clearly concerning both: "This is my body; This is my blood. Truly, Truly I say to
you, if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God." Further, the Reformed church with their doctrine of the election of grace
denies the highest comfort of the gospel, that god desires all men to be saved (1 Tim.
2:4). She tears the sinners from Christ and does not let them come and draw near full of
confidence. She gives them nothing except the anxious expectation of whether they are
elected or rejected by God. Indeed, the Reformed church with that doctrine blames God that
not all men are saved and therefore mocks his eternal mercy in Christ. So? Since the name
"Reformed" indicates this faith can we Lutherans use it who simply remain with
God's clear words and recognize the essence of the Gospel to be the article that Christ is
the savior of all sinners? If someone comes to him will he not send them away? No way! And
this is why we also can not call ourselves Episcopalian, Presbyterians, Baptists and the
like. Namely, all these groups, in addition to many other great errors, teach the errors
of the Reformed concerning the sacraments especially the Presbyterians and Baptists. They
also accept this teaching concerning eternal election.
Now perhaps many others will say: "But what can you find against the name
'Evangelical'? Wouldn't it be right to exchange the name Lutheran with this name? With
this name you wouldn't be required to accept a doctrine that you thought was false, would
you? Don't you know that the Evangelicals are made up of those who permit full freedom in
the articles in which the Lutheran and Reformed church disagree and leave it to every
conscience as to what he will preach as the right understanding?" Of course we know
that. That is why we can no longer use the name Evangelical. the name itself is indeed
wonderful and precious. Indeed it was the Lutheran church which for a long time was the
only one called Evangelical. For two or three hundred years whoever confessed: I am an
Evangelical, confessed that he was a Lutheran as all the world knew. It was indeed through
Luther that God laid his Gospel again into the hands of all. But times have changed and
with them the customs and meanings of names. He who now says: I am an Evangelical,
confesses that he is such a Christian that no one can tell what he believes in many of the
chief articles of the Christian religion. Now I ask, how can one who believes what he
preaches is true and does not garble the truth but instead desires to fully confess it,
how can he (no matter what he believes is true) confess to belong to a church which uses
two different types of confessional writings which are contrary to one another and which
reject one another? How can he belong to a church which has no clear confessions and
indeed in which two different types of faith are praised as good, the truth and lies? (For
two doctrines contrary to one another can not both be true!) Wouldn't one think it's
impossible for men who believe the entire Bible is true to come to think that the new
so-called union or Evangelical church is the last blossom of the kingdom of God in the
world, the outer court of the divine temple of a thousand year kingdom of Christ upon
earth (awaited by enthusiasts)? This church was established by the Prussian King and
forced upon tyrannized congregations against their will and smuggled in with all kinds of
intrigue and eagerly promoted by most rationalists! Instead won't the result of this
church be the return of the time of the Tower of Babble and its confusion of languages?
And in place of the true unity of faith and spirit of the Christian church doesn't it
establish an external ceremonial union of people who believe differently? Through this new
Evangelical Church isn't the doubt over certain points of contention between the Lutheran
and Reformed raised to the point of an article of faith and isn't the forfeiting of the
truth given as the answer to the supposed orthodox? And doesn't the new Evangelical Church
through her default confession that this and that article of faith can be taught
differently here and there clear the way to the time when everything which is clearly
spoken in God's Word is explained to be uncertain and indiscernible? Then wouldn't the
explanation of Scripture be left to the arbitrary nature of every enthusiasts and
rationalist? Isn't the fear well founded that if a congregation constitutes itself first
as Evangelical without the foundation of an explicit confession that there a rationalist
preacher will follow the Evangelical preacher there? Won't that of necessity happen?
Doesn't one of them consider to be wrong precisely what the other says is right/ If the
Evangelical preacher first says: "The explanation of this verse about the sacraments,
predestination etc. is left to every man's conscience," so that no one will be
declared a heretic over a difference in these points, can't the rationalist then demand
this right of freedom in the explanation of Scripture and use it many other points? In
short, that which is now called the Evangelical Church lacks a confession of truth in the
most important parts of Christian doctrine and declares that this is unimportant,
unessential and of no importance and that the Word of Christ is uncertain. Therefore she
can be seen as nothing else than a fellowship of those who are indifferent, that is, of
those who consider true and false doctrine to be of equal importance. Therefore it is
impossible for us Lutherans to any longer call ourselves Evangelicals in order not to be
confused with these people and thus deny our faith. All the more we must call to all the
Lutherans who have allowed themselves to be fooled by the beautiful Evangelical name and
to be lured into the net of false union: "How long will you vacillate between two
opinions? If the Lord is God, so follow hi! If however Baal is God then follow him."
(1 Kings 18.)
Perhaps another will then say: "All right, then call yourselves Protestant."
It is true that for a while after 1529 the Lutherans alone were called Protestants. In
1529 the Lutheran Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg and other Lutheran princes and cities
of the kingdom wrote a protest to the Imperial Diet in Speier. This protest was against
the Diet's declaration that the sharp edit of Worms published in 1521 against Luther and
Luther's banishment should be carried out. And from this protest the Lutherans were given
this name. Although this name could well mean that we as orthodox believers would protest
against all abuses and false doctrines yet it is well known from history that later all
those who separated from the papal Church were included under the name Protestants. This
name too therefore in no way agrees with the faith in our hearts in that we protests just
as much against the erring doctrines of all other churches just as against the Roman
Catholic Church. In addition, it is becoming more customary in our days for those
Protestants to even call themselves Evangelical-Protestants when in fact they don't
protest against the doctrines of men but instead against Christ, his gospel and all the
holy things of his church. Namely, these people, as is well known, have embraced the
decision to entirely extinguish the sunlight of the gospel and to remove it from heaven to
earth and instead use the torches, lights and lamps of the wisdom of their reason and
thereby finally bring about the long awaited enlightenment and maturity of the poor world
which they morn because she has unfortunately again lost the light of paganism and fallen
into the darkness of Christianity! Who can ask us to use the same name as such Protestants
and to be yoked together with them?
But since we live in America perhaps many, in light of the fact that we've rejected all
the previous names, will give us the advice to call ourselves dear Methodists. This name
does sound wonderful. Who would reject this name if only the thing itself were good and
godly? We can not deny that the Methodist fellowship must have a very luring appeal for
people who come here from corrupted congregations in Germany where so many belly servers
sit in the seat of Moses. For contrariwise what zealots they find here for converting
souls! What zealots in prayer, song and reading! What frankness in confessing their faith
in word and deed! How much trouble most of them go to in order to gain heaven! But no
matter how many inexperienced people consider all this to be sure marks of the true church
none of this is decisive for those who are experienced in God's Word.
The Savior tells us that which is necessary for the church of Christ with the words:
"If you remain in what I say, you are my true disciples. And you will know the truth
and the truth will make you free." (John 8:31f.) It is a question of remaining in
what Christ says or in his words. Indeed he who wants to be a living member of the church
must also show it through his enthusiasm in sanctification. But the holiness of Christians
can not save me. Only the pure word which they have and by which they remain can do that.
This is precisely however what man looks for in vain in the most enthusiastic of
Methodists. They depart from the clear words of Jesus Christ who is the True One and the
Almighty not just in the doctrines concerning the holy Sacraments. They mock us therefore
as wooden books that we remain simply by the words of our Savior and they instead
unfortunately follow their reason and their false doctrines. They also build almost their
entire Christianity, their certainly of their place in God's grace and their spiritual
rebirth, upon their uncertain changing feelings. They follow their hearts. Since they do
not want to keep themselves solely with the world and to establish everything upon it they
obviously do not come to any lasting peace in Christ. They torment and agonize themselves
in their own works and must finally hear the word: (Isaiah 55:2): "Why do you count
your money where there is not bread and you work where you can not become satisfied?
Listen to me and eat that which is god etc." With the Methodists, whom many think
good of, that which is lacking above all is a pure doctrine of justification and still
more the right application of the same. Therefore so many among them continually learn but
can not come to a knowledge of the truth. So many seek peace in themselves, in their
battles and troubles and do not find it. For only Christ who offers himself to us in words
and who wants to be grasped only in words through faith, is our righteousness before God
and our complete peace. It is impossible then for us Lutherans to call ourselves
Methodists and thereby give witness that we trade the clear infallible and unchanging word
for the appearance of human piety, works and sentiments. As long as a Methodist is
entangled in his error he will look upon us with a deep sight as upon a man who lacks
spiritual experience of the heart. We can affirm in the truth however that we know from
own experience that all our own works are lost and that all that is human will wilt and
burn in the fire of trial even if its is ever so precious and apparent before men. And
further, only keeping the word and the grace proclaimed in it rescues from doubt and leads
to a blessed victory. While the Methodist experiences the sweet feeling of grace he freely
mocks the Lutheran keeping of the word, as happens so often. But when he comes into
difficult trials he will experience that which he mocked. It is certain that without the
terror of repentance no one can come to faith and that this faith is no dead thought of
our heart but rather a living trust which only the Holy Spirit can work. However, it is
also true that whether one trusts in external works of repentance or sets his trust in the
inner work of his soul and thereby desires to obtain his salvation, both are shameful
monkery and with both Christ is lost.
Here we must once again stop and ask our readers to wait for the promised conclusion in
the next issue.
PART IIIb - October 19, 1844
C. Why do we continue to keep this name?
After reading the last issue of this publication perhaps many will want to say to us:
"Suppose what you said is true, that all the so-called parties have really included
some departure from the Word of God into their confession of the articles of faith and
must therefore be viewed as unorthodox: still you have not dared to deny that one may also
be saved in such organizations! If you do not want to take back this concession, you have
thereby disarmed yourself. For what is more necessary than for a church to be an
institution for the salvation of its members? Why then do you so fear carrying a name that
such an institution may carry? Why do you persist in being called Lutheran? Why do you not
unite with those parties? Does the Lutheran church strive after something greater than
eternal salvation?" It is necessary then for us to speak concerning this more
clearly.
We agree that in all Christian parties there are souls which are saved. Still, in doing
so we in no way are saying that it is all the same whichever religion one stays with and
confesses. We are far from agreement with those who say today: "Believe what you
want, only be a good man and then you will be saved." That may sound very correct to
reason but it must be asked whether one can be a good man when he believes whatever he
wants. We deny this. With this concession we in no way concede that there are many true
churches. We believe instead that there is only one truth, only one true explanation of
the Holy Scripture, and therefore only one true orthodox church, and also only one
institution unto salvation. For only the word and only the sacraments, which the church
has as God's bearer of the keys, are that through which man is brought to salvation. With
this concession, that people are saved in the sects, we don't want to suggest that a man
can be saved through the doctrine in which certain parties have turned away fro the faith
of the true church. No, we know that every error, when it takes hold in a man, is a poison
of death for the soul. Our intended meaning is this: There are many souls in unorthodox
communions who are saved, hot through that which makes the sect a particular sect, and not
because they are members of these sects, but rather because although many externally are
members of these sects still in the heart (perhaps even without knowing it) they cling to
a different doctrine namely that of the true church. This church is the mother which alone
bears children to Christ.
Does it follow from this that the falsely teaching churches are just as much
institutions unto salvation as the orthodox? Indeed not. If many are saved within them
this happens because they still have held to the Bible, the Holy Sacraments, and the
confession of many of the clear truths of the Gospel from the true church. But they have
their own special names not because they hold to this and that doctrine of the true church
but because they have added and removed things from such doctrine.
It must be true that since Christianity does not consists of merely one single church
which everywhere confesses the same faith and the many different churches which exist
contradict each other in their confessions, that either there is indeed no true church on
earth, which has the unadulterated doctrine of Christ (which is impossible according to
the promise of Christ), or from all the churches in all the world there can only be one
which correctly carries the name "True Church." We hold the evangelical Lutheran
Church as this "True Church" because she confesses the doctrines of the Word of
God purely and clearly, and takes nothing away from it nor adds anything to it. She
teaches the use of the holy sacraments without addition or subtraction to the institution
of Christ.
When on the other hand all other Christian parties depart from the clear words of
Christ, when errors are the cause of their separate existence from the orthodox church,
when their errors are the reason for their joining together, so then their names do not
stand for the truths which they still have but rather for their own errors through which
they have separated themselves from and left the true church.
A Methodist, for example, carries this his special name not because he believes in the
divinity of Christ, of the orthodox church confesses this faith also. Rather the Methodist
is called such because among other things he does not believe that those things which
Christ has done are reckoned unto us but instead only that which Christ has suffered and
because the Methodist strives for this and that great error and wages battle for these as
for divine truth.
Further, an Evangelical does not carry this special name because e confesses the Gospel
with his mouth; for the orthodox Lutheran does this also. But rather the Evangelical is
called this because he has the false idea that for the sake of love, for the happiness of
man, and for the sake of peace here in time no importance can be laid upon certain truths
but must rather be sacrificed for such peace.
Therefore I ask: When the unorthodox have separated themselves through their name from
the orthodox, can the Orthodox, without denial of his faith, carry their name and confess
himself the them? Indeed not! The orthodox person instead has the duty to distinguish
himself by his name from the unorthodox. As Cyprian says: "Let us be separated from
them as they have fled from the church." (Ep. I, 3. Ad Cornel). For no one believes
that he who has recognized the errors of his church and yet will not leave it and wants to
remain in the communion of the false church for the sake of temporal considerations is a
true Christian who has the right faith and can be saved. This applies only to those who do
not recognize the secrets of evil and the deep things of Satan (2 Thess. 2:7; Rev. 2:24)
and walk in simplicity of heart. From weakness they indeed externally follow the sedition
makers in the kingdom of God but do not know of the evil things and in their heart they
keep the true faith in Christ through God's grace. We see a beautiful picture of this in 2
Samuel 15:11.
But he who purposely errs or wants to persist in an unorthodox communion can not in any
way comfort himself that he belongs to that communion of saints known only to God which is
spread over all the world. Whoever wants to say: you have yourself said that one can be
saved in a sect; therefore I will remain in it although I see that there are abuses and
errors within it," only fools himself by such reasoning. For God's Word clearly says:
"Go out from them and separate yourself." (2 Cor. 6:14-18). Further: "Guard
yourselves before the false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing. Inwardly they
are ravenous wolves." (Matt. 5:15) "My sheep hear my voice; a stranger they will
not follow but rather they will flee before him." (John 10:5-27).
Indeed it is true, that many who unintentionally take poison are rescued by an
antidote; but is such a rescue to be hoped for by the one who willingly empties the entire
flask of poison? So likewise many simple people persevere in faith through God's oversight
although their preachers mix in the poison of false doctrine with the gospel. But how can
one comfort himself with this divine oversight when with knowledge and willingness he
seeks such poisonous spiritual food.
Whoever has a (divine) call to go into a quarantined house knows he stands under God's
certain protection; but what should be expected when one goes in because of curiosity and
mischieviousness and is exposed to the disease. Is it any different when one wants to
remain in a false church contrary to his recognition of the truth?
The orthodox church is Christ's chip in which Christ guides the rudder. His pure Word,
which does not deceive, is the compass. And his believers navigate over the stormy sea of
this world full of temptations into the harbor of blessed eternity. Indeed many save
themselves clinging to ship wreckage, which also the false churches have. But will he who
chooses to save himself on a beam rather than to seek admission to the ship from which a
thousand helping hands reach out to help him arrive a the heavenly port through Christ's
grace?
Even if all these comparisons are not correct in every detail, still we think they can
enlighten those (who hear that many even in the sects will be saved) who think that it is
all the same whether one is in the orthodox church or some erring church, or whether he
who is already in the midst of such a church fellowship delays at the crossroads.
But finally, many will say: "Why must it be the name 'Lutheran' that you
use?" We answer: We know well that the real substance is not in the name for there
are many who call themselves Lutheran who have given up the doctrine long ago, who have
laid aside our church in her symbols, especially in the unaltered Augsburg Confession and
the small Catechism of Luther. Such false Lutherans are however easy to distinguish from
the true Lutherans because our church has published these public confessions for all the
world.
However, when we realize that: 1 - it was Luther and no other through whom God in these
last times has brought the pure clear doctrine of the Word of God together with the right
use of the Sacraments again into the day and onto the plain and, 2 - the communion of
those who have confessed this pure doctrine of the Word of God with heart and mouth is
therefore named and known by every Lutheran by this name; we can only confess the faith
which is in our hearts purely and completely with the name Lutheran. If we would get rid
of the name Lutheran the highest suspicion would be aroused that either we are ashamed of
the old Lutheran doctrine, or that we no longer consider it to be the only true doctrine
agreeing wit God's clear Word and that a new false doctrine is in our hearts. As dear,
therefore, as the truth is to us, as dear as God's honor and the salvation of our souls is
to us, so little can we, especially in this time of wide spread error, give up the name
Lutheran. By this name we separate ourselves from all the unorthodox of all times and
publicly confess the right faith of all time.
Because of this, the most serious accusation is made against us that by doing this we
tear apart the body of Christ, disassociate ourselves from brothers, wield the sword
against heirs of the same inheritance, and declare them to be our enemies. But those who
say this are wrong. We disassociate ourselves only from the errors in which so many of our
brothers are captured. And we would act without love towards them if we would not loudly
witness against that which keeps them in such danger of souls. It is and remains
impossible that this action which is in accordance with God's express command can lead to
the ruin of God's kingdom. This fact can and must cancel out all other thoughts for a
Christian, when it is asked what he should do in any particular circumstance.
But the divine command stands clear that we must not just keep our faith in our heart
but must confess it also with the mouth. And so St. Paul says in Rom. 10:10: "One
believes with the heart, and becomes righteous; and one confesses with his mouth and is
saved." And so says Christ: "He who confesses me before men, he will I confess
before my Father in heaven." Matt. 10:32-33. So if we have the Lutheran faith in our
hearts, so we must, if we want to be saved and not be eternally damned, confess it with
our mouths.
And so all orthodox Lutheran of all times have thus thought and thereby operated. As
one example, the Margrave of Brandenburg, at the time of the Reformation, when he was
called a Lutheran in order to shame him, explained:
I am not baptized unto Dr. Luther; He is not my God and Savior. I do not believe in him
and will not be saved through him. Therefore in this sense I am not a Lutheran. when I am
asked however whether I confess with heart and mouth the doctrine which God has again
given to me through his instrument Dr. Luther, then I do not hesitate nor am I timid to
call myself Lutheran. And in this sense I am and may I remain a Lutheran all my life.
Certainly Luther fought the idea as an abomination that someone should call himself
Lutheran on account of an idolatrous faith in Luther's person. Still he understood that he
did not have to consider it objectionable if one calls himself Lutheran in order to
distinguish himself with this name from the unorthodox and to confess himself to be a part
of the orthodox church. Considering this circumstance the dear man writes:
I see a good admonition is needed for those whom Satan is persecuting. Among them there
are some who think they might escape danger when they are attacked so they say: I do not
agree with Luther, nor anyone, but with the holy Gospel, and with the holy or Roman
church. So they would be let go in peace and still hold my doctrine in their heart as
Evangelical and remain with it. Truly such a confession does not help them and is the same
as denying Christ. Therefore I ask, let these beware. It is true that for the sake of body
and soul you should not say: I am a Lutheran or a papists. For neither has died for you,
nor is your master, but only Christ; and you should confess yourself to be a Christian.
But if you think that Luther's doctrine is evangelical and the pope's is unevangelical,
then you must no reject Luther. You will otherwise also reject his doctrine with him,
which you recognize as Christ's doctrine. Rather, you must say: Whether Luther is a knave
or a saint matters not to me; but this doctrine is not his but Christ' himself. For you
see that the tyrants do not act such in order to bring down Luther but that they want to
destroy the doctrine. And on account of the doctrine they question you and ask whether you
call yourself Lutheran. Here you must not speak with words that bend with the wind, but
rather freely confess Christ, whether Luther, Claude, or George has preached him. Let the
person go, but you must confess the doctrine. So also St. Paul writes to Timothy (1 Tim
1:8): "Do not be ashamed of the witness of our Lord nor of me because I am bound for
His sake." If it had been enough for timothy here that he confessed the Gospel, Paul
would not have commanded him not to be ashamed: not for the sake of the person of Paul,
but rather for the sake of him who was bound for the sake of the Gospel. Now if Timothy
had said: I cling neither to Paul nor to Peter but only to Christ and yet he knew that
Peter and Paul taught Christ, he would have thereby denied Christ. then Christ speaks in
Matt. 10 about those who preach him: "He who accepts you, accepts me; He who rejects
you, rejects me." why is that? Therefore, if someone keeps his messengers (who bring
His word), it is the same as when He Himself and His word is kept." (Werke XX, 136).
I have changed the reference in the original from "the 13th article of the Apology
..." tr. Indeed, Mr. Oertel denies that the pope is in the place of God according to
Catholic doctrine as we read in the "Wahrheitsfreund" (Vol. 7, num. 39, pg.
309). Here however this man whom we deeply pity divulges that he in a moment of trial had
thrown himself into the arms of the Roman Church without having carefully tested her
doctrine. He continually places his trust in the Decrees of the Tridentine Council when he
refers to publicly taught errors of the Catholic theologians and explains that Catholic
doctrine is to be chiefly judged according to the decisions of this church council. Mr.
Oertel should take the trouble to open to Council. Trid. Sess. VI. Decret. de Reform. C.
1. Ed. Lugd. Page 52 and there he will find that this council calls the pope "the
vicar of God himself on earth" and "he who hold the place of God himself on
earth." Perhaps Mr. Oertel might have his eyes opened through fundamental study of
the uncatholic doctrine of the Roman church. Mr. Oertel has explicitly called us to battle
in his "Wahrheitsfrend". We will not fail to appear on the battlefield.
While some of these errors and claims have been modified somewhat by Rome since Walther
wrote this article it is hardly clear that the newer errors of intensified Mariology,
rationalism and universalism that have infested that Church render it any more acceptable
in our day. MN See Formula of Concord, Comprehensive Summarn, para. 5. Triglotta p. 850,5.
I refer here to the example of Calvin and the Heidelberg catechism which speak almost like
a Lutheran concerning the Lord's Supper but in fact teach nothing else than that which
Zwingli and his type teach. In recent times the connection between the Evangelicals and
Rationalists has largely been dissolved as the Evangelicals are now essentially
fundamentalists and Rationalism has conquered the major denominations. But indifference to
sound doctrine remains an unchanged characteristic of the Evangelicals.