Walther On The Trinity: From An LCMS President Who Understood Theology

By: Rev. Jack Cascione

 

There was a time when the Synod would only elect a president who was willing and able to answer questions about God and the Bible.  This writer was threatened with expulsion from the Synod by the current Synodical President for telling the truth about God.

This is the same President who lectured the entire 2001 Convention about the importance of keeping the Eighth Commandment, while Dr. Waldo Werning published his false doctrine about the Trinity to every Convention delegate.

Now after nearly a year of covering up Werning’s false doctrine, the LCMS President suddenly informed me through the Praesidium that the charges against me were “terminated.”

In response to my letter asking President Kieschnick what he believed about the Trinity, I received a two-line response telling me that he had received my letter.  The LCMS has a President with a burning desire to save the lost but who will not answer questions about God.

The following is a quotation from “Essays For the Church” by C. F. W. Walther, Volume I CPH, 1992, pages 60-61.

Here Walther brilliantly explains why God cannot be divided as Werning divides God.  The South Wisconsin District President also writes that I have broken the Eighth Commandment for telling the truth about God while he defends Werning’s lies.

In the following quotation, Walther currently explains that whoever wants to recognize God outside of Christ, eliminates the equality in essence between Son and Father and must accept either several gods or deny the true essence of the complete fullness of the Godhead in Christ [cf. Col. 2:9] as Werning does.


Justification, Fifth Western District Convention Addison Ill. Beginning May 5, 1859 , 6,III,(P)

Following Zwingli's shameful example, the Reformed sects also destroy the doctrine of justification by their false doctrine on the person of Christ.  Like him, they deny to this day that God suffered for us [and] that God's blood was shed for us.  Where Scripture expressly testifies to this, they want to see only a rhetorical figure of speech, which says something different from what is meant.  Thus one brands the language of Holy Scripture as that of a swindler.

A mere man is said to have died for us on Golgotha .  It is inconceivable how a person who claims to be a Christian could arrive at such a godless doctrine, it is true, of course, that God as such cannot die, but Christ, who is true God, could die since He had assumed human nature, so that Godhead and manhood now form one person in Him.  A human being's soul as such can, of course, also not die; yet the "whole" human being, consisting of body and soul, dies, and the soul is indeed most affected thereby.  So also the most important thing for us is that the One who died for us is true God.  If God had not died for us, then no one would be saved.  However, whereas we now can sing, to our great comfort in life and in death, “O sorrow dread! God Himself is dead; upon the cross He died," yet this very hymn is an abomination to the true Reformed.

In complete harmony with Zwingli's gross rationalism, according to which he does not seriously believe that Christ was true God and [true] man in one person, Calvin says it wouldn't help anyone if he would simply confront God with Christ, but that God accepts Christ's work as fully sufficient only because of eternal election.  In his thinking, too, only a man died.  "Christ is God's Son and true God” therefore even now means nothing more to the Reformed Church than that God dwelt in the Lord Jesus in a higher degree than in other people, about as He dwelt with His glory particularly in the temple at Jerusalem.  But even if the Reformed say that the whole God dwelt in Jesus, they still speak of a God outside of Him.  Thank God, there still are simple souls among the Reformed, who hold that it is meant seriously when also there the words are still used, "Christ is true God and man in one person," and one relies thereon in faith.

If someone were to ask how the truth that there is no God outside of Christ harmonizes with the article on the Trinity, the answer is: There is no difference in the essence of the three persons of the Godhead, which is why it also cannot be divided.  Nevertheless, what appears three times in the Trinity, namely the person-hood, occurs only once in Christ.  But whoever for that reason still wants to recognize God outside of Christ, eliminates the equality in essence between Son and Father and must accept either several gods or deny the true essence of the complete fullness of the Godhead in Christ [cf. Col. 2:9].  When Christ lay in the crib and hung on the cross, there was no other God than precisely the One in the crib and on the cross.

Of course, one must not bring mathematical computations to bear here.  If the mystery of the Trinity would cease being a mystery to us, then we would first have to know what is mean by the words "born" and "proceeding" as used of the persons of the Godhead.  And if we are asked in objection how the Godhead could have become so small as to dwell incarnate in the man Jesus, we answer:  "No change took place in the Godhead through the personal union with human nature; it did not become smaller thereby, but human nature became larger.  Human nature did not assume the divine nature, but the other way around:  The divine nature assumed the human nature.

Zwingli would not agree that "the Word became flesh" [John 1:14 ], but held that it should only say that the Word is the flesh that is has become ("das Wort ist gewordeness Fleisch"), i.e., through the incarnation of Christ.  He stopped being God, and His deity was, so to speak, transformed in Jesus into humanity (for only so was He said to be able to die), and only after that did He again become great God.  So here [in Zwingli] we hear today's heterodox theology ("After-theologie").

November  18, 2003