Walther on why we are called "Lutherans" and not just "Christians - Part 3

The following article comes from the very first edition of "Der Lutheraner" the predecessor magazine to the Lutheran Witness.  When our church body began, people in the United States were critical of us calling ourselves Lutheran.  This article seeks to defend our use of that name.  

In it the first synodical president, C.F.W. Walther, explains why we are called Lutherans, not just Christians.  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, and is in the public domain thanks to Bob Smith at the Concordia Theological Seminary Library.  We will release a part every other day for the next few days.  

Today's section deals with "Why do we keep the name 'Lutheran'"  Why don't we call ourselves Catholic, Reformed, Evangelical, Protestant, or even Methodist?  Why not simply Christian?  Why do we hold to the word "Lutheran" itself?  What do these words mean today?  They all carry baggage with which we are not comfortable.  Walther examines each word and the baggage that comes with them.  

Tomorrow, Walther brings it to a close and tells us why we must be Lutherans - and why we should be proud to be!

Key points are highlighted with Red Font.

Concerning the Name "Lutheran"
C.F.W. Walther
Translated by Mark Nispel
From: Der Lutheraner v. 1, pp. 2-4, 5-7, 9-12. June, 1994

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 Christian." 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.