 |
| August Pieper wrote Isaiah II, got rid of Kohler. |
 |
| He wrote Biblical Christology, a good summary. |
 |
| Kohler was an architect and church historian, a real brain, so WELS got rid of him. He is the saint/martyr of the Protest'ants. |
A Michigan reader asked:
Weren't Kohler, Schaller & A. Pieper responsible for the
Wauwatosa Theology books? I'm forgetting the early WELS details.
Here
is the last sentence from the first paragraph of your post:
If we find
that the idea of reconciliation bears a close resemblance to those of
propitiation and satisfaction, so that we slip from the one into the other
almost without noticing it, we need not be disturbed; for we are not called upon
to establish a regular logical sequence of these terms, but to accept each one
at its full value without cavil.
The "without cavil" ending is good, but the flow of
that sentence, one long 'if', suggests to me a reasoned extension allows the
inclusion of justification though that might be outside of the broader
context.
Likewise, the last sentence in the second paragraph, when it includes the
knowledge of justification with reconciliation in the giving of the Word, could
be read as a hedge that would allow inclusion of justification in
reconciliation, which would have happened at the crucifixion.
Thus the giving or
establishing of this Word (of reconciliation) is a consequence of the
reconciliation and therefore at the same time includes the knowledge of the
justification of the sinner, which indeed is involved in the reconciliation, but
is not identical with it. –
Maybe it is just his manner of presentation that I find
suspicious. Taking just his words, you are right; he is not selling UOJ. But I
can see that how he says it can be extended to become objective
justification.
Even Hoeneke can be read two ways. Maybe it is just WELS
writers have never been totally sure of what they wanted to say, or never
careful enough to allow no misinterpretation.
Interesting quotations though. Thanks.
***
GJ -
“ … we submit to no man, be his name Luther or Walther, Chemnitz or Hoenecke, Gerhard or Stoeckhardt, so long as we have clear Scripture on our side. . . . We esteem the fathers highly, far higher than ourselves as far more learned and more devout than we are. Therefore, we want to use them, particularly Luther, as guides to Scripture, and to test their doctrines a hundred times before we reject them. But authorities equal to Scripture or opposed to Scripture they may never become for us, or we shall be practicing idolatry. . "
More from the same blog:
They saw that the conservative synods of the Lutheran church were falling victim to the same error that Luther denounced - putting the authority of the church fathers above that of Scripture. Pieper called this authority-theology.
"We renounce this authority-theology anew. It causes so much damage to the church. It is unfaithfulness to the Lord; slavery to men; it brings errors with it. But it also makes the mind narrow and the heart small. . . . Dogmatic training perhaps makes one orthodox, but it also easily makes one orthodoxist, intolerant, quarrelsome, hateful, and easily causes division in the church.
. .
Scripture is at once narrow and broad. The study of it makes the heart narrow to actual false doctrine and heresies, but broad toward various human expressions and presentations. It does not accuse of false doctrine unnecessarily; it teaches us to bear and suffer in love the mistakes of the weak. It keeps the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Therefore we want to entirely do away with this dogmatic authority-theology, and to sink ourselves ever deeper into Scripture and to promote it above all else. We know that in doing so we will best serve the church.”
- August Pieper (1913), Quoted by Mark Braun in The Wauwatosa Gospel (2002). p 25.
---
This blog died five years ago, but it is fun to read the self-glorification of WELS, which leaves me gasping for breath - it is so funny:
GJ - No single word describes the dogma and attitude of WELS better than Wauwatosa.
Their attitude, as revealed above, was typically anti-Confessional. In renouncing authority-theology, Augie made himself the authority, who could judge the two norms of Scripture (ruling norm) and the Confessions (the norm ruled by the Scriptures).
One Pieper to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them. Trying to explain the split is so complicated that few understand all the events that led to the president of the seminary being ousted over a paper. Could that happen today in WELS? It just did.
From Augie to John Jeske (same family - Kevin Hastings a has a great joke, which I cannot repeat) to Mark Jeske - identical arrogance, foolishness, and ego. People like that do not care how many bodies they trample on, how many congregations they divide and destroy.
Jon Buchholz announced that UOJ was "settled doctrine for 150 years" in WELS, even though the opposite is true. Besides that, Jon made it clear that HE was the authority.
Ambiguity and philosophical dancing-around are two characteristics of anti-confessional writing.
Why are the Wauwatosans difficult to read, the Concordists easy to read? The Wauwatosans are wrapped up in all their modern philosophical training, German literature angst, and self-admiration.
WELS has always wanted to define itself as distinctly different from Missouri, and the green eyes of jealousy are never missing from that comparison.
Walther was very much their type of theologian - only a bachelor's degree but full of himself, a poor exegete, an Antinomian Pietist. The trouble is, he got a big operation going by controlling it all himself, and WELS kept tearing itself up with conflicts and ugly behavior.
Ambiguity about UOJ versus justification by faith is easy to find in:
- Hoenecke.
- Lenski.
- Schaller.
Two forces were at work:
- The influence of Pietism and Halle made UOJ acceptable, so we find Marquart and Webber still citing the Halle Pietist Rambach to "prove" Easter absolution.
- All American Lutherans were struggling with the Confessions to rectify the errors of the past. Thus they were either publishing Luther in English and German, printing the Book of Concord, and writing anew about the Reformation.
We do not have to defend any given theologian or writer, because there really are two authoritative sources - the Word and the Confessions.
The Intrepid Lutherans were good at stating that classic Lutheran concept, but the unspoken ruling authority there is Holy Mother WELS, incarnate in Mark Schroeder. Thus real discussion is impossible, lest Holy Mother be offended. Holy Mother is easily and often offended - not by murder, file-swapping, clergy adultery, or false doctrine - but by Luther's doctrine.
Too bad Tim Glende kilcreased his blog, or I could promise another screaming post from him, echoes of Wauwatosa Pietism.
The following graphics explain the situation well.
 |
| The Church Shrinkers advocate open communion and no communion. |
 |
| This describes Wauwatosa and WELS today. |
 |
| Schmauk on Church Growth, Emergent Church, multi-culturalism. |
 |
| This zipped all over Facebook after being posted. Finally, one of my FB friends told me about its viral spread and said, "Is that your graphic?" |
