_12_The Church and Its Dogmas

The question as to the essence and value of dogmas has in reality been disposed of in the previous chapter, where we have demonstrated that the Church is obligated to teach only the doctrina divina, the truths set down by God in Holy Scripture. But the need of Christian dogmas has been challenged, especially on two fronts.

There are those who insistently call for an “undogmatic,” a creedless, Christianity. They reduce the Christian faith and the “real” work of the Church to the “social gospel.” This “social gospel” would have the Church forget the “other world” (das “Jenseits”), including heaven and hell, or at least put it into the background, and instead of that concentrate on the “present world” (das “Diesseits”), on “heaven on earth.” The social gospel regards “Boston as of equal importance with the New Jerusalem because it takes, almost literally, the vision of St. John, who saw the ‘New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven’ to occupy this earth.”140 Others admit the necessity of dogma. But since the old dogmas have outlived their usefulness, they must be supplanted by a new set of dogmas, such as will be suited to present conditions, their exact form being, in the nature of the case, still under discussion. Others, again, think that the old dogmas can well be retained, but, of course, they must be “further developed” or “liberalized.” The advocates of an undogmatic Christianity, of course, have no need of any kind of dogma.141

In establishing the definition of dogma,142 we must examine the validity of the claim that all those doctrines should be recognized as church dogmas that “ask for or claim to have the sanction of the Church.” This definition, though widely favored, is unsatisfactory. History shows that it was particularly the “unchurchly” dogmas which most insistently demanded recognition as dogmas of the Church. But the mere claim for recognition does not establish that claim. To illustrate, one of Rome’s dogmas declares that the sinner obtains the forgiveness of his sins not by faith in the Gospel, but by keeping the commandments of God and the Church, and Rome demands in the strongest terms possible that this dogma be accepted; Rome goes so far as to anathematize all who believe that the sinner is justified solely through God’s mercy in Christ without the deeds of the Law.143 As a matter of fact, however, this Romish dogma is a most “unchurchly” thing; so much so that it excludes from the Church all who believe it. “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). “As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse” (Gal. 3:10; Gal. 4:21-31). Then there is the dogma of the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope.144 For this dogma, too, Rome demands recognition by all men, under pain of eternal damnation; it anathematizes all who reject it.145 Nevertheless, it is not a church dogma, but is banned from the Church, whose sole head and authoritative Teacher is Christ (Luke 22:25; Matt. 23:8, 10).

Other illustrations. There is the Reformed dogma of the immediate revelation and operation of divine grace. “Dux et vehiculum Spiritui non est necessarium” (the Spirit needs no guide or vehicle). “Efficacious grace acts immediately.”146 The Reformed strive with might and main for its acceptance and vehemently demand the rejection of the contrary Lutheran doctrine as derogatory of the majesty of God and as fostering a mere intellectual Christianity (intellectualism). But it cannot qualify as a church dogma; it is a pure delusion, for which there is not a shadow of Scripture proof, but which directly contradicts Scripture (John 17:20: “through their Word”; 1 Cor. 4:15: “through the Gospel”; Rom. 10:17: “by hearing”; Tit. 3:5: “by the washing of regeneration”; Eph. 5:26: “with the washing of water”).

The Arminians and the synergistic Lutherans bring great pressure to bear to have the teaching of human co-operation in conversion accepted by the Church. They raise the cry that unless the sola gratia be “restricted,” a compulsory conversion, a gratia particularis, and other evils will result. However, synergism is not a church dogma, because Scripture throughout teaches the sola gratia.

One more example. While there is wide doctrinal divergence among modern theologians, they are agreed that the Christian doctrine must not be drawn from Holy Scripture, but from the bosom of the theologian, from his “experience.” The supporters of this peculiar dogma will brook no opposition. They declare that the inevitable result of “making the Bible an infallible book,” “the only source and norm of the Christian doctrine,” is Biblicism, dead orthodoxy, and the like. But the preceding chapter has shown that this dogma, far from being a church dogma, destroys the foundation of the Church.

It will certainly not do to define as “dogma” any doctrine which merely “asks for, or claims to have, the sanction of the Church.” The correct definition is: that dogma is a church dogma which is taken from the “manual” of the Christian Church, from Holy Scripture, and every dogma which does not have its origin in Scripture is unchurchly. As matters stand, it cannot be otherwise. The Christian Church has no doctrine of its own; it possesses, teaches, and confesses only Christ’s doctrine. Luther: Ecclesia Dei non habet potestatem condendi ullum articulum fidei, sicut nec ullum unquam condidit, nec condet in perpetuum. The Church, indeed, teaches, confesses, and approves the articles of faith or the Scriptures, not as lord and judge, as though she had authority over Scripture (more majoris sive auctoritate iudiciali); she does it in subjection to Scripture (more minoris) — just as the servant acknowledges the seal of his lord. (St. L. XIX:958.) And this applies not only to the local congregations, but also to the larger church organizations, general bodies, synods, councils, and the like.147

The question has been raised whether such ecclesiastical terminology as expresses the exact sense of Scripture without employing the express words of Scripture may be termed a dogma. To put it concretely, Are the doctrines expressed in the terms “Trinity” and “ho moousia” (consubstantiality) dogmas of the Church? We shall have to say with Luther: “It is certainly true that in matters concerning God nothing should be taught except the Scriptures, as Hilary says in his De Trinitate. But that means only that nothing should be taught which is different from the Scriptures. It does not mean, and it cannot be held, that one cannot use more words or other words than those that are in the Scriptures. Especially in controversies, when the heretics opposed the true doctrine with all manner of sophistries and evasions and perverted the words or Scripture, it became necessary to comprise what Scripture says in many passages in a short word of summary and to ask them whether they held Christ to be homoousios; for that word expresses the true meaning of all those words of Scripture which they perverted.” (St. L. XVI:2212.)

What is true of synods and councils and of all large and small church assemblies certainly applies also to the individual theologian and his theology, particularly also to the dogmatician and his dogmatics. Theologians (and dogmaticians) are church theologians only in so far as they recognize Scripture as the sole source and norm of theology, only in so far as their theology is not a mixtum compositum of Scripture doctrine and human opinions, but theologia , simply the reproduction of the doctrine revealed and presented in Scripture. The theologian (and the dogmatician) dare not make human teachers of the Church the source and norm of doctrine. Even when they teach the pure Scripture doctrine, these human teachers serve only as testes veritatis, “as witnesses which are to show in what manner after the time of the Apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles was preserved” (Trigl. 777, 2). The genuine Lutheran dogmaticians apply this also to the Symbols of the Lutheran Church, for they confess, “first, the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged” (Trigl., 851, 3).

In passing we may say a word for the “old dogmatics.” It is claimed quite generally that the old dogmaticians, in presenting their doctrine, did not start with Scripture, but with the corpus doctrinae fixed by the Church, using Scripture merely as a “collection of proof-texts” for what they had already accepted as the true doctrine. The assertion is historically untrue, and those that make it bona fide are ignorant of the facts. In the old dogmatics, as represented, for instance, by Quenstedt, Scripture serves not only as the norm but, first of all, as the source of the doctrine. Just take time to study Quenstedt’s Systema Theologicum, its and , the presentation and the corroboration of the various doctrines. — Modern theology, by the way, fighting pro domo, denounces the old method of establishing doctrine by the direct statements of Scripture and asks us to operate instead with the “Scripture as a whole.” What an inconceivable concept this “Scripture as a whole” is will be shown later.

Church Dogma and the Theological Disciplines. Theology is commonly divided into dogmatic, historical, exegetical, and practical theology. And it is the dogma, that is, the doctrine of Scripture, which stamps these various branches of theology as theological disciplines and unifies them. It is the function of historical theology not only to give a historically true picture of the events, but also to evaluate these established facts in the light of Scripture. Historical theology is the divinely taught art of ascertaining from Scripture God’s verdict on the historical events and conditions. That is what makes church history a theological discipline. When the church historian judges events according to his subjective view or any other extra-Biblical norm, church history is no longer a theological discipline. A Christian church history shows, says Luther, “how the dear Gospel fared in the world.” Where things are as they should be, the Church will, therefore, elect only such men as professors of church history as are thoroughly conversant with the Scripture doctrine in all its parts, well informed in dogmatics, in order that the instruction in church history will not confuse but aid Christian understanding. The final aim of church history is not to “awaken reverence for history,” but to instill and strengthen reverence for God’s Word. — Exegetical theology deals exclusively with the words of Holy Scripture. It is the divinely taught art which binds the teacher and the learner to the sense expressed in the words of Scripture and compels him to expose as false all interpretations contrary to text and context. Exegesis loses its theological character if the exegete does not adhere throughout to the “Scriptum Scnpturam interpretatur” and “Scriptum sua luce radiat” No extra-Biblical material, philological or historical, may determine the exegesis. That holds true particularly with regard to historical circumstances. Interpreting the words of Scripture according to a “historical background” not furnished by Scripture itself but, wholly or in part, by contemporary secular writers, is false exegesis. All the historical background necessary for the correct understanding of Scripture is given by Scripture itself.148 Practical theology is the ability to apply the pure Christian doctrine, learned from Holy Scripture, in the work of the public ministry, in preaching, in ministering to souls, in catechetical instruction of young and old, etc. In so far as the minister yields to non-Biblical considerations in the performance of his ministerial functions, in so far his practical theology is no longer theological.

From the foregoing it is evident that the dogma is the unifying core of the various theological disciplines. The dogma, the Scriptural doctrine, is the essential element in every discipline, which integrates all branches of sacred theology. The dogmatician must also be an exegete, historian, and practical theologian; and likewise the exegete, the historian, and the practical theologian must also be a good dogmatician. Each must be well acquainted with the Scripture doctrine in all its parts. — In spite of the demand for an “undogmatic” Christianity, we declare: “Only dogmatics is edifying,” namely, dogmatics as doctrina divina revealed in Scripture, the only doctrine which may be taught in Christ’s Church. In the Christian Church, doctrine is the all-important thing. The general orders issued by Christ (Matthew 28) read: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Let no minister of Jesus Christ, be he theological professor or pastor of a church, forget this. The theologian who no longer believes that “supernatural truths” are imparted through Scripture, through the doctrine of Scripture, but denounces that as conducive to “intellectualism,” has lost sight of the obligations of his sacred office. And the pastors, yes, they especially, dare never forget that their paramount business is to preach doctrine, the divine doctrine of Holy Scripture. Their sermons must be what we commonly call “doctrinal sermons.” Dr. Walther’s plea for doctrinal sermons deserves careful attention. He says: “Let a sermon be ever so rich in exhortation, rebuke, and comfort, if it be devoid of doctrine, it is a lean and empty sermon; its exhortation, rebuke, and comfort float in the air. It is almost beyond belief how many preachers sin in this respect. Hardly has the preacher touched his text and theme when he starts exhorting or reproving or consoling. The sermon consists almost entirely of questions and exclamations, beatitudes and lamentations; there is so much calling for self-examination and such a belaboring of the feeling and conscience that the hearers have little opportunity for quiet reflection. But far from reaching the heart and producing true life, such preaching is more likely to talk people to death, to destroy any existing hunger for the bread of life, to produce disgust with, and loathing for, God’s Word. It cannot but nauseate the hearers to be forced to listen to everlasting exhortations and reproofs and consolations which, because the doctrinal foundation is lacking, are pointless and saltless. It is, of course, much easier to shake this sort of thing out of one’s sleeve, and thus give the sermon the appearance of vivacity and power, than to present a doctrine lucidly and thoroughly. This may be the chief reason why many preach doctrine so sparingly, and as a rule deliberately choose such topics as are already well known to hearers and therefore call only for practical applications. There are many, however, who shy away from doctrinal preaching simply because they themselves have no thorough knowledge of the revealed doctrines and so are unable to present them clearly and thoroughly to others. And then there are those who do not care to preach much doctrine because they are laboring under the illusion that detailed doctrinal discussions are too dry, leave the hearers cold, and contribute nothing to the awakening of the conscience, to conversion, and to a living, active Christianity of the heart. This, however, is a gross mistake. The very opposite is true. The eternal thoughts of God, revealed to us in Scripture for our salvation, these divine truths, these divine counsels, these mysteries of faith, which had been kept secret since the world began but are now made manifest to us through the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, are the heavenly seed which must be planted in the hearts of the hearers in order to produce the fruit of a sincere repentance, an unfeigned faith and a sincere, active love. There can be no true growth of the spiritual life in a congregation if the preaching is not rich in doctrine. The preacher who skimps on the doctrine is not faithful in his office, even though his continuous fervid admonitions, earnest reproofs, and the consolations which sound so evangelical give him the reputation that he is consuming himself in faithful care of the souls entrusted to him.” 149