_17_Theology and Doctrinal Development

In accord with its principle of continuity in revelation, modern theology holds that development in doctrine is essential to a living and dynamic Christianity. Also within the Lutheran Church of America men had gone in for the further development of the Lutheran doctrine.182

There can be no development of the Christian doctrine, because the Christian doctrine given to the Church by the Apostles is a finished product, complete and perfect, fixed for all times. It is not in need of improvement and allows no alteration. Christ’s mandate (Matt. 28: 18-20) extends over the entire New Testament era to Judgment Day. According to this mandate the Church is to teach the nations all things whatsover Christ has commanded. And Christ declares further that the Church has His doctrine in the doctrine of His Apostles when He declares (John 17:20) that all members of His Church to the Last Day will believe on Him through the Word of the Apostles. The Apostles, too, insisted on the finality and immutability of their doctrine. Paul exhorted the churches to retain the doctrine which they had received from him. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). And this injunction was addressed not only to the Apostolic Church, but to the Church of all times. That is evident from the passages in which Paul expressly refers to the future. “After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). “In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1; also 2 Tim. 3:1 ff.). Paul left no room for an interim theology. “Keep this commandment … until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:14 f.; 2 Tim. 4:1 ff. See also 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Paul’s doctrine is the immutable divine truth; so much so that Paul pronounces a curse upon everyone who dares to change his Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9; 5:12). Because the Apostolic doctrine is immutable, Paul commands the Christians to avoid all who teach otherwise (Rom. 16:17) and to regard them as bloated babblers and ignoramuses (1 Tim. 6:3-4). — The theologians of our day and age should note that Paul maintains the perfection of the Apostolic doctrine especially over against those who claim to possess higher philosophical knowledge and deeper spiritual insights and presume to supply alleged deficiencies in the doctrine of Christ. He declares that those who believe the doctrine of Christ, as proclaimed by the Apostles, “are complete in Him.” “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit…. And ye are complete in Him” (Col. 2:7-10; also 16-20).183

The advocates of the doctrinal development theory appeal to the fact that the Church in the course of time found it necessary, as new errors arose, to give expression to the Christian doctrine in such new formulations as , homo mere passive se habet. The point is not well taken. These new formulations did not develop or change the Christian doctrine. On the contrary, they maintained the old doctrine against new errors; employing them, the Church continued in the Word of Christ (John 8:31). Luther proves conclusively that the old “chief councils” with their , etc., did not make new doctrines, but simply confessed the doctrines which, on the basis of Scripture, Christendom had believed from the very beginning.184 Nor did the Reformation in any way develop the Christian doctrine. It added nothing; it only extricated the old doctrine of Scripture out of the rubble of the popish doctrines of men and again taught and confessed the old doctrine. Luther did not set out to improve the old doctrine. “We fabricate nothing new, but retain, and hold to, the old Word of God as the ancient Church confessed it; hence we are, with it, the true ancient Church, believing and teaching one and the same Word of God. Therefore the Papists blaspheme, once more, Christ Himself, the Apostles, and the whole Christian Church when they call us innovators and heretics. For we teach, as they must know, nothing but the old doctrine of the old Church.” (St. L. XVII: 1324.) All those theologians fail to understand the Reformation who appeal to Luther as an advocate of the doctrinal development theory and who say that the Reformation is a “new interpretation of Christianity.” The Augsburg Confession, too, proudly proclaims that it has introduced nothing new into the Church: “This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome, as known from its writers…. Our churches dissent in no article of faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new….” (Trigl. 59.) Likewise the Formula of Concord has no intention of setting up new doctrines; it declares for the principle “that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with (all) teachers should be estimated and judged are the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone…. Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than 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.” 185

That there can be no development of the Christian doctrine is, finally, evidenced by the patent fact that whenever men set out to develop the doctrine, they invariably pervert and destroy the Christian doctrine. Not only Luther and the so-called repristination theologians, but all sincere theologians of the nineteenth century who were concerned about the preservation of the Christian doctrine have condemned the doctrinal development theory. The Evangelische Kirchenzeitung of Berlin, founded by Hengstenberg and continued by Tauscher, declared in its April issue of 1870: “We must say that the present age, with its theological and ecclesiastical chaos, is not at all suited for a development of the churchly doctrine. For even the most churchly theologians of modern times, such as von Hofmann, Thomasius, even Hengstenberg, have had no success in this business; their attempts to develop this and that doctrine of the Church have been — sit venia verbo — a dismal failure…. The new impetus given to the development of the Christian doctrine by Schleiermacher has proved to be disastrous for doctrine as well as for life.”186

Recall, finally, what has been said in the chapter “Christianity the Absolute Religion.” We will engage in the business of developing the doctrine only so long and in so far as we do not know the Christian doctrine. As soon as, and in so far as, we have by God’s grace learned to know it by faith in God’s Word, we bow our heads and knees in adoration, admiring its unchangeable divine grandeur. That is also the attitude of the holy angels toward the things which the Apostles have proclaimed to us by the Holy Spirit, sent from heaven: “Which things the angels desire to look into” (1 Pet. 1:12). The theology of repristination is the theology of the Church; any other theology has no right of existence (John 8:31-32; 17:20; 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.; Eph. 2:20).