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.
