The name
Charles Porterfield Krauth (d. 1883) may be unfamiliar to most WELS Lutherans. Perhaps this is because he was not WELS. Regardless of the reason, this unfamiliarity is most unfortunate, for Krauth was, in fact, a leading figure of the confessional Lutheran movement in 19
th Century America, and his contributions to confessionalism remain vitally important. He was a Lutheran of the early Eastern synods and a student of
Samuel Schmucker (d. 1873) – who taught that the Augsburg Confession was rife with error, envisioned a future for American Lutheranism which espoused union with Reformed and Methodist Christians, advocated a theological formula for doing so, and even founded an organization to advance these ideas. Krauth grew to oppose Schmucker, his former teacher, eventually retiring from parish ministry to combat unionism full-time and to work toward establishing confessional unity among Lutherans in America under the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. To this end, and under Krauth's leadership, the
General Council was formed in 1867, serving as a significant and positive force for the advancement of Lutheran confessionalism. That work still being "relevant", portions of the General Council's output has even appeared on Intrepid Lutherans in the past – the
Explanation of the Common Service being published on this blog last July (which is now available in book form from
Emmanuel Press, should the reader desire a personal copy). Regarding Krauth and his significance, Rev.
David Jay Webber (Little Sect on the Prairie), in his fine essay
Charles Porterfield Krauth: The American Chemnitz, quotes a figure who
should be familiar to WELS Lutherans –
C.F.W. Walther:
***
GJ - There is just one little problem with Lindee and Webber gushing about Krauth. Both of them teach against justification by faith, unlike Krauth.
The General Council theologians recognized and emphasized the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace. I believe Knapp's peculiar notion of double-justification was unknown in the General Council, although it was a fetish of Walther and Pieper.
Krauth taught in harmony with Luther because he was trained in an anti-confessional atmosphere, knowing far more about the union spirit than anyone.
In contrast, Walther became a Christian through Pietism, came from Pietistic circles, and arrived in America with a Pietist bishop-for-life, Stephan. Walther's struggle was over leadership rather than doctrine, and he quickly became the new bishop-for-life. He also picked his successor, F. Pieper.
Spener and Halle were both such halle-wed names in the 19th century that no one could question anyone or any idea from there. Nor did people like to admit that Pietism turned to pure rationalism so quickly.
Walther and Pieper were good examples of the 19th century American ideal, a union of the Reformed and Lutheran ideals. All Lutheran-Reformed unions ended up Reformed, with the ones more influenced by Lutheran doctrine lasting longer. Krauth wrote about that as an example from church history.
The Walther sect grew so rationalistic that it took a major revolution to install a synod president with intellectual ties to Lutheran Orthodoxy (Jack Preus).
If that were not bad enough, WELS and Missouri sent all their leaders through Fuller Seminary and rewarded anyone with a Fuller degree. This happened because everyone was fussing over the canon law of Pietism rather than teaching the Means of Grace. May I pray with my maiden aunt on her deathbed if she is ALC but really orthodox? "Yes!" "No!" "Well, it depends. Are you sure she will die?"
Lindee is correct in pointing out the three stages of error, which first came from Augustine. He and Webber are good examples of UOJ Enthusism being the third stage of error in the Synodical Conference. UOJ is the only "doctrine" taught by the Synodical Conference now, and they all agree about it. They might as well merge so they can circle the drain together.
Church and Change's websty and programs are intact. But don't let me catch you talking about justification by faith.
---
"The Holy Spirit works through the Word and the Sacraments, which only,
in the proper sense, are means of grace. Both the Word and the Sacraments bring
a positive grace, which is offered to all who receive them outwardly, and which
is actually imparted to all who have faith to embrace it."
Charles P. Krauth,
The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, Philadelphia: The United Lutheran Publication House, 1871, p. 127.
Krauth's statement is incompatible with Lindee and Webber claiming that grace comes to people without and before the Word.
As my American readers will know,