An Essay in Handiwork of MDNispel Mark D. Nispel, PhD

Get the pdf with citations and footnotes here:

In 313 CE the Roman Emperor Constantine along with his imperial colleague issued the Edict of Milan and established the legal basis for the toleration of Christianity within the Roman Empire, both East and West. This event served as a critical component of what can be called the “Rise of Christendom”. “Christendom” here means “the portion of the world in which Christianity is the dominant religion”. As such this word ‘Christendom’ includes within it an aspect of demographics, that is, being a dominant religion among a population, and also, an aspect of geography, a region or combination of regions where this religion is dominant among the population. Taken together these two aspects indicate ‘Christendom’ must relate to the governing system of the people and the region involved. A religion can not become dominant in a geographic region without attracting the attention of governing authorities. There must be either implicit or explicit toleration. The Edict of Milan was a new statement of explicit tolerance for Christianity by the political establishment of the Roman empire. It ended state sanctioned repression and persecution of Christians. As has been said before: “Christ founded Christianity, but Constantine founded Christendom.” And the history of the west was changed forever. But what did the Christian interactions with established society look like before 313 CE?

CFW Walther

Source Document: The Google Books scan and OCR source from Google Books:

Hathi Trust Archive: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003905830

.pdf of the Translation with footnotes etc.:

My 2019 translation pdf: WaltherConcerningtheNameLutheran._MDNispel1989Revised2019

This translation as revised in 2019 is available also online from other websites such as:

https://ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/WaltherConcerningtheNameLutheran.pdf

Translated by Mark Nispel From: Der Lutheraner 1 (1844):2-4, 5-7, 9-12 PDF June 2019

[Translator’s Note: 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].

Masters Thesis - University of Nebraska 1997 and related work

Thesis

I Said, ‘You are gods’" Salvation as Deification and the Early Patristic use of Psalm 82

Derived Article

Nispel, Mark D. “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia”, Vigiliae Christianae 53, 3 (1999): 289-304, doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/157007299X00037

Available back issue:

Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia

Get the article including citations and footnotes:

Original pdf: Made-Without-Hands.pdf

In this paper I will identify several monotheistic and monergistic verbal expressions from the Hebrew Old Testament. I will then demonstrate that these ideas and phrases interacted and developed over time via a series of linguistic steps which led ultimately to the creation of a specific Greek word by early Christian communities. This word was used to describe the role of God’s power in several aspects of Christian salvation. Specifically, this article examines the origin and usage of the early Christian word ἀχειροποίητος, ‘made without (human) hands.’

The shortest fables are usually the sharpest. Fable 128 of Laura Gibbs’s Mille Fabulae et Una — Simius et Speculum, “The Monkey and the Mirror” — is eight Latin sentences long, and it tells the entire history of self-deception in eight sentences.¹ An ape who has never seen himself mistakes his reflection for a different animal. He laughs at it. He jeers at it. He even compliments the mirror-maker on a fine piece of work. Then a bystander tells him the truth, and in a single line the whole scene reverses: Heus, te ignoras? Tua est ipsa haec imago — “Listen, don’t you know yourself? That image is yours.” The fable ends with the ape attacking the mirror.

As a demonstration of a translating ai workflow and the current capabilities of some of the leading platforms / models for academic or language type work, I present the workflow I just completed for having ai re-translate the article “Von dem Namen Lutheraner”.

See also: Blog post introducing this project

NOTE: my own hand translated 2019 version is here with links to the original source:

Concerning the Name Lutheran

Step 1 -> The Original Source Document

I have the original source document as an 1844 printed text. This was the source for the original 1989 and 2019 translations.

As a second demonstration of an AI translation workflow, I present the project completed for the 1854 article “Sollen die Apokryphen des Alten Testaments ferner den Bibeln beigebunden werden oder nicht?” (“Should the Apocrypha of the Old Testament Continue to Be Bound with Bibles or Not?”), published in Der Lutheraner, Vol. 10, No. 11, St. Louis, January 17, 1854.

See also: Blog post introducing this project

The workflow follows the same pattern as the first AI translation demo, applied here to a previously untranslated Lutheran periodical article on a topic of continuing interest: the proper place of the Apocrypha in Lutheran theology and practice.

C. F. W. Walther

Contributions to the Defense of the Christian Religion against the Most Common Objections of the Scoffers and Blasphemers of Our Day

Source: Der Lutheraner I.5 and I.8 (1844).

.pdf of the translation:

Walther_And-They-Call-That-Enlightenment_Nispel2026

Translated by Mark Nispel with AI models / tools (GPT-5.6 Sol, modern readability edition), 14 September 2026.¹

Briefly:

• Scoffers claim that trusting Scripture means rejecting reason, and they call that “Enlightenment.”
• Reason alone gives no sure or consistent answers about God, life’s purpose, or what follows death.
• Reason is still a valuable gift for ordinary life, learning, and every subject within its proper limits.
• The mysteries revealed in Scripture are above bounded reason, not contradictions against it.
• Making reason the judge of revelation is setting the sun by the clocks—and they call that enlightenment.

1. Anyone familiar with the history of the Christian church has surely noticed that today’s enemies of Christianity offer no objection that has not been made a thousand times before—often more skillfully and persuasively—and repeatedly answered by faithful servants of Christ. It may therefore seem pointless to fight enemies who have already been defeated. Some may think it enough simply to reprint the old defenses of Christianity and put modern unbelief to shame. But that will not do. Today’s opponents of divine revelation may only be picking up the broken arrows of their predecessors for a new campaign against Christ, the King of truth. Yet they have polished those old weapons until many people find them new and even frightening. They have also developed new tactics that confuse and alarm inexperienced defenders. Even when they merely serve the same stale ideas again and again, they know how to season them for a new audience.

© Mark Nispel, 1998 as a PhD student at the University of Nebraska Lincoln

Get the article including citations and footnotes:

Original pdf: de servo arbitrio (some missing Greek fonts)

Published in Logia VII (1998), 4:

Nispel, Mark. “De Servo Arbitro and the Patristic Discussion of Freedom, Fate, and Grace.” Logia, A Journal of Lutheran Theology (1998): 13-22.

Available as a back print here.

The church first expresses what it believes in the language of prayer and worship, but when it turns to teaching and confessing this language does not always suffice. Therefore, Christian theology has often turned to the philosophical schools for language and concepts with which to confess that which is believed. The doctrine of human nature is one such case. The concepts of human freedom, moral responsibility, and fate were debated vigorously by the Greek philosophers. This debate of the academies is clearly reflected in the theology of the early Greek fathers as they confessed human freedom. Further, the very concept of “will”, as we use it, is itself derived from reflection upon human psychology and is not a part of a divinely revealed schematic of human nature. Yet, in churches all around us and in our general society, it is quite common to speak of the unquestionable axiom of “free will”, as some positive and indispensable part of mankind. In this context, Luther’s *de servo arbitrio *(Concerning Bound Choice) and Article XI of the Formula of Concord stick out like two sore thumbs. Given this state of philosophically packed language, a long Christian history, and the Lutheran confession denying human free will it is important to consider the language and context of the confession against free will. In so doing, I believe that it will be discovered that Luther’s *de servo arbitrio *reflects much of Augustine’s approach to free will, divine foreknowledge, and predestination, but, unlike Augustine, Luther keeps these doctrines subject to the preaching of law and gospel, the revelation of God in Christ.