St. Peter wrote about sacrificial Christian identity, but a disgruntled Saxon lawyer turned a Liberal theologian's concepts into the foundation of LCMS polity
I do not know, from what David Scaer has his information about Vehse and Schleiermacher. But when you read the Vehse texts you will find that he is arguing not with Schleiermacher but with Veit von Seckendorff who was more than a hundred years earlier. And the doctrine of Walther is not false, but the Biblical one. Also Peter has that the royal priesthood should spread the good news, in these verses. As have Luther and our confessions, especially the Tract about the Primacy of the Pope and the Power of the Bishops. And the Bible has it also in Matt. 16:13-20; 18:15-20; John 20:21-23; 1 Cor. 3:21-23. Please be careful now in Missouri, since there are, sad to say, romanizing tendencies by some in the clergy.
About the Stephan case, that is difficult now to reexamine. That is a historical question first. And as far as I know there hat been several women who confessed, independent of each other, that they had been in sinful relations with M. Stephan. P. Loeber has examined that very carefully. And the way Stephan has treated the immigrants, was horrible too. Might be, that lateron he changed the way of acting, when having a new congregation. But there had been investigations against him even in Saxony. There is no reason to rehabilitate Stephan or even Grabau (as there are tendencies too).
You seem to fear the hyper- euro-sarcedotalists Otten warned us about. Honestly there is nothing Romish about the LCMS. If there is a creeping Romanism in the synod it is creeping very, very slowly. As far as Stephan goes I met one of his descendants when I served in the Indiana district. The Stephan family claims it was a frame job. Whatever is the truth of the matter enough time has passed that the issue can now be revisited to determine if the decision arrived at in the heat of the moment best reflects the Bible and Lutheran theology. I am looking forward to reading further discussions on the matter.
The Vehse/Schleiermacher connection may be more coincidental than correlative or causative. Not to be neglected in this discussion is the influence the early PIetism of Arndt and Spener. Walther draws his doctrine of the priesthood of believers directly from Spener's "Geistliche Priestertum" which he terms a "precious little book." This, in turn, relies on a cherry-picked reading of Luther, who wrote all sorts of things related to the office of the ministry.
Also, the engagement with JAA Grabau and the Buffalo Synod had a significant influence on the development of Walther's Theses on Church and Office. See William M. Cwirla. “Grabau and the Saxon Pastors: The Doctrine of the Holy Ministry, 1840-1845,” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 68(2) (Summer,1995), 84-99.
“The Church-possession thesis that became the foundation of LCMS ecclesiology was not the product of intense research, study, and wrestling by a theologian, but rather the protest brief of a lawyer who felt the clergy had failed the laity and argued his case on a narrow recasting of the priesthood of all believers.”
“He’s not a theologian!” What a ridiculous comment; I feel compelled to defend my fellow lawyer! What exactly makes one a theologian versus not a theologian? And what manner of respect must we have for a theologian’s opinion compared to a non-theologian? What’s the basis for saying he didn’t engage in intense research, study, and wrestling with Scripture, particularly given all the comments about his familiarity with Luther’s writings, etc.?
Even if this was an unfair criticism to develop a genetic arguement against a position you disagree, I look forward to part 2 as you advance your position.
A professional theologian is formed at seminary through prayer, meditation, and trial (not necessarily at seminary). Theologians in the narrow sense learn the Scriptures in the original languages. This is on top of learning history of doctrine, liturgy and practical learning. It’s generally a 4-5 year training program. A lawyer had none of that.
I wouldn’t presume your view of lawyers is the same as theologians, I.e.,not everyone who has a general understanding of law makes one a lawyer? It’s not to say they can’t have an opinion on the law but it carries less weight than a trained attorney. Isn’t that why one must pass the bar examination? Granted there is no theologian “bar exam” but there are many intellectual exams and personality type tests at least at some seminaries.
Of course, that doesn’t mean a trained lawyer or theolgian is infallible. However, when it comes to law, I trust a certified attorney over an arm chaired attorney. Likewise, I trust a trained theologian over an arm chair theologian.
Vehse seemed to cherry pick Luther’s writing or had a limited knowledge of them. It is also concerning when one seeks to find support for a position that the church was unaware of for 1800 years combined with little or no theological training. And no, I'm not referring to Vehse’s contemporary Joseph Smith.
Just seeing this, but my view is that your definition of theologian is wanting. What makes a lawyer is pretty simple: a license to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. Knowledge and understanding of law is meant to help with obtaining that license, but having a license is by no means a guarantee of that. There are many non-attorney’s who have better knowledge and understanding of the law.
Credentialism doesn’t carry much weight with me if you couldn’t tell from my last comment. Even more so with “theologians” who meet your criteria who have a penchant for the same faults as academics and other professions where novelty is often rewarded. I would caution against the appeal to credentials when judging theological positions. I think even Scripture says something about that.
So, contrary to the claim of the article, you view Vehse as not having extensive knowledge of Luther? What’s that based on? And what’s your basis for saying there was no support in church history? I think you are relying a bit too much on the characterization of this issue by author of this article who in particular is trying to support an argument they are making on the balance of authority if you will between the pastor and the congregation.
But by all means, let’s start marshaling all the professional theologians, past and present, on each side to explore this.
I agree that authority itself doesn’t makes one correct or incorrect on any issue per se. Hence, my statement about a false appeal to authority. Authorities can err at times with the exception of Christ and His Word. However, authority does carry weight as one has shown to have education and experience.
Vehse adduces Luther’s earlier views against the papacy for the laity having preeminence over the clergy. He misunderstands Luther in this regard because Luther thought the princes should help with church governance not every layman. We know Luther supported the episcopal structure with bishops by his signature on the Wittenberg Reformation document produced by Melanchthon in 1545, year before his death.
It is a fact that the vast majority of churches were governed by the pastors of the church and never solely by the laity. Read the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise on the Power of the Pope. (Nota Bene that in the Treatise the Latin translation of this phrase “by their pastors” was inexplicably removed from paragraph 72 in McCain’s 2nd edition do the Concordia).
The laity certainly were involved to some extent but never like in the LCMS. In Church history, the majority of Church Councils were represented mainly by pastors with very few if any laity. Hence, one of the supporters of missions in North America, Pastor Wilhelm Löhe, statement regarding mob ruling with the Walther/Vehse structure. Vehse’s arguments, as Mr. Wood shows, is based on a faulty hermeneutic of the royal priesthood. I would encourage you to research this yourself without predisposition. Blessings on our Lord’s Day.
Much of your commentary (and Ad Crucem's) obscures the central point.
Based on the several articles written by Ad Crucem on this issue, I would frame their central claim being that the congregation relinquishes the keys to its pastor, who wields those keys without congregational oversight. If that's not the claim, I would welcome correction.
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that it is the congregation who holds the keys and has authority to call a pastor who is entrusted with those keys. The dispute seems to be on whether the keys are like material keys that once handed over no longer remain with the owner of the keys. So does the congregation retain any authority with respect to keys? Is the pastor subject to any oversight from the congregation with respect to wielding those keys?
What say you? Without predisposition, I've made myself clear in these comments. I commented on the first article Ad Crucem posted (https://www.adcrucem.news/p/fatal-errors-of-lcms-ecclesiology) that I would look into it further, but that I was skeptical. I've been looking into it, and I'm still skeptical, and don't find your comments or Ad Crucem's writings persuasive on this point.
I know the Confessions and the history. I myself have criticized our polity and how it plays out. I'm not here to defend it. That's a red herring. Whether we have a polity more like this or that church body today or of yesteryear is interesting, but not the point here. That each congregation gets a pastor and a lay vote at convention is something that I find ridiculous. Again, not the point...at least as I read it.
I do not know, from what David Scaer has his information about Vehse and Schleiermacher. But when you read the Vehse texts you will find that he is arguing not with Schleiermacher but with Veit von Seckendorff who was more than a hundred years earlier. And the doctrine of Walther is not false, but the Biblical one. Also Peter has that the royal priesthood should spread the good news, in these verses. As have Luther and our confessions, especially the Tract about the Primacy of the Pope and the Power of the Bishops. And the Bible has it also in Matt. 16:13-20; 18:15-20; John 20:21-23; 1 Cor. 3:21-23. Please be careful now in Missouri, since there are, sad to say, romanizing tendencies by some in the clergy.
About the Stephan case, that is difficult now to reexamine. That is a historical question first. And as far as I know there hat been several women who confessed, independent of each other, that they had been in sinful relations with M. Stephan. P. Loeber has examined that very carefully. And the way Stephan has treated the immigrants, was horrible too. Might be, that lateron he changed the way of acting, when having a new congregation. But there had been investigations against him even in Saxony. There is no reason to rehabilitate Stephan or even Grabau (as there are tendencies too).
You seem to fear the hyper- euro-sarcedotalists Otten warned us about. Honestly there is nothing Romish about the LCMS. If there is a creeping Romanism in the synod it is creeping very, very slowly. As far as Stephan goes I met one of his descendants when I served in the Indiana district. The Stephan family claims it was a frame job. Whatever is the truth of the matter enough time has passed that the issue can now be revisited to determine if the decision arrived at in the heat of the moment best reflects the Bible and Lutheran theology. I am looking forward to reading further discussions on the matter.
The Vehse/Schleiermacher connection may be more coincidental than correlative or causative. Not to be neglected in this discussion is the influence the early PIetism of Arndt and Spener. Walther draws his doctrine of the priesthood of believers directly from Spener's "Geistliche Priestertum" which he terms a "precious little book." This, in turn, relies on a cherry-picked reading of Luther, who wrote all sorts of things related to the office of the ministry.
Also, the engagement with JAA Grabau and the Buffalo Synod had a significant influence on the development of Walther's Theses on Church and Office. See William M. Cwirla. “Grabau and the Saxon Pastors: The Doctrine of the Holy Ministry, 1840-1845,” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 68(2) (Summer,1995), 84-99.
“The Church-possession thesis that became the foundation of LCMS ecclesiology was not the product of intense research, study, and wrestling by a theologian, but rather the protest brief of a lawyer who felt the clergy had failed the laity and argued his case on a narrow recasting of the priesthood of all believers.”
“He’s not a theologian!” What a ridiculous comment; I feel compelled to defend my fellow lawyer! What exactly makes one a theologian versus not a theologian? And what manner of respect must we have for a theologian’s opinion compared to a non-theologian? What’s the basis for saying he didn’t engage in intense research, study, and wrestling with Scripture, particularly given all the comments about his familiarity with Luther’s writings, etc.?
Even if this was an unfair criticism to develop a genetic arguement against a position you disagree, I look forward to part 2 as you advance your position.
A professional theologian is formed at seminary through prayer, meditation, and trial (not necessarily at seminary). Theologians in the narrow sense learn the Scriptures in the original languages. This is on top of learning history of doctrine, liturgy and practical learning. It’s generally a 4-5 year training program. A lawyer had none of that.
I wouldn’t presume your view of lawyers is the same as theologians, I.e.,not everyone who has a general understanding of law makes one a lawyer? It’s not to say they can’t have an opinion on the law but it carries less weight than a trained attorney. Isn’t that why one must pass the bar examination? Granted there is no theologian “bar exam” but there are many intellectual exams and personality type tests at least at some seminaries.
Of course, that doesn’t mean a trained lawyer or theolgian is infallible. However, when it comes to law, I trust a certified attorney over an arm chaired attorney. Likewise, I trust a trained theologian over an arm chair theologian.
Vehse seemed to cherry pick Luther’s writing or had a limited knowledge of them. It is also concerning when one seeks to find support for a position that the church was unaware of for 1800 years combined with little or no theological training. And no, I'm not referring to Vehse’s contemporary Joseph Smith.
Just seeing this, but my view is that your definition of theologian is wanting. What makes a lawyer is pretty simple: a license to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. Knowledge and understanding of law is meant to help with obtaining that license, but having a license is by no means a guarantee of that. There are many non-attorney’s who have better knowledge and understanding of the law.
Credentialism doesn’t carry much weight with me if you couldn’t tell from my last comment. Even more so with “theologians” who meet your criteria who have a penchant for the same faults as academics and other professions where novelty is often rewarded. I would caution against the appeal to credentials when judging theological positions. I think even Scripture says something about that.
So, contrary to the claim of the article, you view Vehse as not having extensive knowledge of Luther? What’s that based on? And what’s your basis for saying there was no support in church history? I think you are relying a bit too much on the characterization of this issue by author of this article who in particular is trying to support an argument they are making on the balance of authority if you will between the pastor and the congregation.
But by all means, let’s start marshaling all the professional theologians, past and present, on each side to explore this.
I agree that authority itself doesn’t makes one correct or incorrect on any issue per se. Hence, my statement about a false appeal to authority. Authorities can err at times with the exception of Christ and His Word. However, authority does carry weight as one has shown to have education and experience.
Vehse adduces Luther’s earlier views against the papacy for the laity having preeminence over the clergy. He misunderstands Luther in this regard because Luther thought the princes should help with church governance not every layman. We know Luther supported the episcopal structure with bishops by his signature on the Wittenberg Reformation document produced by Melanchthon in 1545, year before his death.
It is a fact that the vast majority of churches were governed by the pastors of the church and never solely by the laity. Read the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise on the Power of the Pope. (Nota Bene that in the Treatise the Latin translation of this phrase “by their pastors” was inexplicably removed from paragraph 72 in McCain’s 2nd edition do the Concordia).
The laity certainly were involved to some extent but never like in the LCMS. In Church history, the majority of Church Councils were represented mainly by pastors with very few if any laity. Hence, one of the supporters of missions in North America, Pastor Wilhelm Löhe, statement regarding mob ruling with the Walther/Vehse structure. Vehse’s arguments, as Mr. Wood shows, is based on a faulty hermeneutic of the royal priesthood. I would encourage you to research this yourself without predisposition. Blessings on our Lord’s Day.
Much of your commentary (and Ad Crucem's) obscures the central point.
Based on the several articles written by Ad Crucem on this issue, I would frame their central claim being that the congregation relinquishes the keys to its pastor, who wields those keys without congregational oversight. If that's not the claim, I would welcome correction.
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that it is the congregation who holds the keys and has authority to call a pastor who is entrusted with those keys. The dispute seems to be on whether the keys are like material keys that once handed over no longer remain with the owner of the keys. So does the congregation retain any authority with respect to keys? Is the pastor subject to any oversight from the congregation with respect to wielding those keys?
What say you? Without predisposition, I've made myself clear in these comments. I commented on the first article Ad Crucem posted (https://www.adcrucem.news/p/fatal-errors-of-lcms-ecclesiology) that I would look into it further, but that I was skeptical. I've been looking into it, and I'm still skeptical, and don't find your comments or Ad Crucem's writings persuasive on this point.
I know the Confessions and the history. I myself have criticized our polity and how it plays out. I'm not here to defend it. That's a red herring. Whether we have a polity more like this or that church body today or of yesteryear is interesting, but not the point here. That each congregation gets a pastor and a lay vote at convention is something that I find ridiculous. Again, not the point...at least as I read it.