Altlutheraner

Modern “confessional Lutherans” today praise such men as Hermann Sasse. He, they assert, fought in defense of the truth and against error in the twentieth century. So let’s see what this great Lutheran taught publicly.

Sasse writes:

You know that our United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Australia is connected with Loehe and Iowa, now the American Lutheran Church, and our sister Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Australia, is in communion with Missouri. … We tried to overcome the old scheme of the Orthodox fathers and to build the doctrine on Scripture on Luther’s understanding of the Word of God.¹ I think you will like this approach, which tries to overcome the Fundamentalist issues.²

Now, just who were the promoters of “the Fundamentalist issues,” which, being identical with “the old scheme of the Orthodox fathers,” Sasse sought to overcome? Fortunately for us, Dr. Eugene F. Klug in a 1985 essay provides us with the answer. The relevant section reads:

In Sasse’s considered opinion the defense of Scripture’s inerrancy was not only futile but also an evident surrender to Fundamentalism. He minced no words in faulting the LC—MS for defending Scripture’s inerrancy, openly criticizing theologians like Franz Pieper, Theodore Engelder, Paul E. Kretzmann, and William Arndt, for leading Missouri down the primrose path to an impossible, absurd, and naive position on Scripture. Instead of trying to reconcile Scripture’s so-called “problems,” or discrepancies, one should simply live with them as phenomenological happenings. Sasse felt that he had the mind of Luther here. The facts are, however, that Luther can only be claimed for the Pieper- Engelder-Arndt side of the matter.

So one can easily see, then, that the following were the actual defenders of the truth of God in that time: Profs. Franz Pieper, Theodore Engelder, Paul E. Kretzmann, and William Arndt. However, Prof. Arndt would not remain as steadfast as he once was, but would gradually move in an un-Christian direction. His initial position, seen in his 1937 book Christian Prayer, was one of firmness in doctrine and practice. Here he writes, p. 65:

Whoever changes the teachings of Jesus thereby creates a division in the church and sets himself in opposition to all those who adhere to the doctrine of Christ. We have learned from St. Paul that we must avoid all such causes of division (Ro. 16:17). That naturally means that we can have no prayer fellowship with them.

However, in the course of discussions with the representatives of the American Lutheran Church, his faithfulness to God’s Word was damaged, to say the least. Hence in 1943 he came to write an essay defending the ALC’s false doctrine concerning justification, in which he admits that “Everybody can see that the sentence under discussion puts the creation of faith before the pronouncement of justification,” i.e., it denies that Christ died for the sins of the world. Finally, the man would say during discussions with the ALC:³

In my opinion the meeting, if it is held, should be opened with joint prayer. A common document constituting a confession of faith has been drawn up by representatives of two church bodies, which document will be considered by both bodies when they meet in convention. If the representatives of these bodies cannot jointly ask for God’s guidance when they meet, then I move in a deep fog as to the scope and meaning of joint prayer.

So we are left with three champions of the teaching of Scripture: Profs. Franz Pieper, Theodore Engelder, and Paul E. Kretzmann. But I would also add Prof. J. T. Mueller to the list. From Prof. Franz Pieper the reader is especially directed to his Brief Statement and his Christian Dogmatics; afterwards he is to read What is Christianity? and Other Essays. As for Prof. Engelder, I direct the reader especially to his book Scripture Cannot Be Broken. Of Prof. Kretzmann’s works, his 4-volume Popular Commentary is undeniably his greatest work. However, that Kretzmann later taught falsely is evidenced by his writing Toward Lutheran Union with Graebner, which is plainly unionistic. But this undeniable fact ought not raise any suspicion regarding most of his earlier writings. However, the 1927 Concordia Cyclopedia, of which he was an editor-in-chief, while sometimes useful for references, does teach contrary to the Word of God in some points, e.g., on usury. But it also recommends Luther’s writing That Pastors Should Preach Against Usury. So there appears to be certain conflicting positions concerning usury among the different editors.

1. For proof that “Luther’s understanding of the Word of God,” contrary to the naked assertions of Sasse, were in perfect accord with the Orthodox fathers, see the essay Prof. Peiper wrote for the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, vol. 4, pp. 249–266, “Luther’s doctrine of inspiration.”

2. Quoted in Concordia Theological Monthly, vol. 23, p. 221.

3. This occurred after he signed the disastrous Statement of the 44, which clearly contradicts his earlier position.