_1_Holy Scripture the Only Source and Norm of Christian Doctrine for the Church Today

THE Christian Church is indeed older than Holy Scripture, that is, older than the written Word of God. Until the time of Moses, God called His Church into existence and preserved it by His oral Word (viva voce) The Christian Church came into existence immediately after the Fall, when God, having applied the Law to fallen men orally (Gen. 3:8-14), gave mankind the oral promise of the Woman’s Seed, who was to destroy the works of the devil, that is, free men from the guilt of sin and all its consequences (Gen.3:15), and Adam and Eve believed the “first Gospel.” Through the oral Word, proclaimed in various ways, God continued to build His Church until the days of Moses.1

But after God had chosen to transmit His Word in writing, the Church of every age was strictly bound to the written Word of God.2 No man was permitted to add anything to the written Word nor to subtract anything from it (Joshua 23:6; Deut. 4:2). The Church of the Old Testament was rigidly bound to the written Word of God as its complete canon, to which only God could add from time to time.3 In the time of the New Testament God added the writings of the Apostles to the books of the Prophets as the foundation of faith. Of the Church of the New Testament Paul says Eph. 2:20: “Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.”4 The Scriptures of the Apostles are co-ordinated with those of the Prophets because it is one and the same Spirit of Christ speaking through both. “Not unto themselves, but unto us, they [the Prophets, who had “the Spirit of Christ”] did minister the things which are now [in the days of the New Testament] reported unto you” (1 Pet. 1:10-12). With the Word of the New Testament Apostles, God’s revelation of the doctrine to His Church is entirely completed, for when Christ in His high-priestly prayer (John 17:20) says: “Neither pray I for these alone,” the Apostles, “but for them also which shall believe on Me through their Word,” through the Word of the Apostles, He is thereby making the Word of His Apostles the basis of faith for the entire New Testament era. That through the ministry of hundreds of thousands who are not Apostles men are brought to faith in Jesus has its cause in this, that these hundreds of thousands, yes, millions, of men, do not speak their own words, but the Word of the Apostles and Prophets. We quote once more Luther’s remarks on the words of David: “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me” (2 Sam. 23:2): “Such a boast neither we nor anyone who is not a Prophet may utter. What we may do if we are also sanctified and have the Holy Ghost, is this, that we boast of being catechumens and pupils of the Prophets — we repeat and preach what we have heard and learned from the Prophets and Apostles, and are also sure that the Prophets have taught it. In the Old Testament such men are called ‘the children of the prophets’ who offer nothing of their own and nothing new, as the Prophets do, but teach what they have learned from the Prophets, and they are the ‘Israel,’ as David calls them, for whom he writes the Psalms.” (St. L. III:1890.)

Only one question remains: Where does the Church of the New Testament find this Word of the Apostles with certainty? The Apostles themselves point us to their Scriptures. They declare, in the first place, that their written Word is in content identical with their spoken Word. The Apostle John says: “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you … and these things write we unto you” (1 John 1:3-4). Paul also co-ordinates his oral and his written word: “Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Not everything that Christ and the Apostles taught has been recorded (John 21:25), but the instruction given in the writings of the Apostles is abundant, yea, superabundant, since the same thoughts are stated not only once but often. “To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe” (Phil. 3:1). In the second place, we see that the Apostles insisted already very firmly on the scia Scriptura. Even in the days of the Apostles the same false sources of knowledge and the same false norms were prevalent which later on and down to our day have plagued Christendom, such as spurious prophecy or “spirits,” alleged word of the Apostles, or “tradition,” alleged epistles of the Apostles. Over against all such claims Paul points to his written Word as the safe source and norm of the true Apostolic doctrine. Genuine “prophecy” and “spirit” were indeed present in the Apostolic Church; therefore Christian congregations were instructed not to reject a priori this Spirit and prophecy, but to apply to them the test of the Apostle’s Word. When in the congregation at Corinth “prophecy” and “spirit” placed themselves alongside, and even above, the Apostolic authority, Paul wrote to the congregation (1 Cor. 14:37 f.): “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” This means that whoever will not acknowledge as divine norm what Paul had written should be recognized as a pseudo prophet and be treated as an ignoramus. The passage 2 Thess. 2:2: “That ye be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled neither by spirit nor by word nor by letter as from us, as that the Day of Christ is at hand,” is important because here the Apostle sets his written instruction against “spirit,” against the alleged word of the Apostle (tradition), and against the alleged epistle of the Apostle. Christians should not permit themselves to be “shaken in mind or troubled” by any such pretensions.5 In order that the congregations might be able to distinguish spurious from genuine epistles of the Apostle, Paul wrote the greeting with his own hand (2 Thess. 3:17): “The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.”

The Scripture principle is rejected and, instead, the human Ego installed as teacher in the Church in the following instances:

1. When natural reason is made the judge. By “natural reason” we mean here man’s natural knowledge of God and of divine things, which, without the revelation of Scripture, is limited to a knowledge of God’s existence only and of the divine Law, as we have shown repeatedly, and this knowledge leaves man under God’s wrath and curse, since man cannot keep the Law. Concerning the Gospel, which brings men the forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction and constitutes the very essence of the Christian religion, man himself knows absolutely nothing. 1 Cor. 2:9: “Eye hath not seen nor ear heard neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.” It has already been shown that not only the illiterate, but also the cultured, especially the philosophers, whose reason has been trained, lack this knowledge.6 Making natural reason the judge of matters religious is a , is the attempt to set up human unreason as teacher in the Christian Church in place of the Word of God. This is done by the Unitarians of all ages, who openly avow that they reject such doctrines as the holy Trinity, the metaphysical deity of Christ, and the satisfactio vicaria because they are “unreasonable” (this error will be discussed in greater detail when these doctrines are treated). The Unitarians are extra ecclesiam. The same error is committed by all those within external Christendom who reject some parts of the Christian doctrine because, as they say, they are unreasonable. We have already shown that in those doctrines in which the Reformed Church differs from us and by which it has divided Protestantism it does so because it has put rationalistic axioms in the place of the Scripture principle. (See p. 25 ff.) It has also been shown that nothing else than rationalism is the mother of synergism (denial of the sola gratia) as well as of Calvinism (denial of the universalis gratia). (See p. 32 ff.)

However, the term “reason” has a second meaning, in Scripture as well as in secular usage. It means also the mental or rational nature of man, that is, the capacity of man to receive the thoughts of another into the mind, the ability to perceive and think. This is the so-called ministerial use of reason (usus rationis ministerialis, organicus), as distinguished from the magisterial use of reason (usus rationis magisterialis). The ministerial use of reason is, of course, legitimate in theology because the Holy Ghost works and sustains faith only through the Word of God as it is correctly perceived by the human mind. Scripture therefore very emphatically enjoins this use of reason Rom. 10:14: “How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” Rom. 10:17: “Faith cometh by hearing.” John 5:39: “Search the Scriptures.” Matt. 24:15: “Whoso readeth [what Daniel says of the abomination of desolation] let him understand.” Luke 2:19: “Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.” This usus instrumentalis of reason as a tool to hear, apprehend, and ponder the words of Scripture includes also the observance of the laws of language (grammar) and the laws of human thinking (logic) as used in Scripture, for God has adopted the human tongue and the human manner of thinking. God has deigned, as Luther again and again reminds us, to “become incarnate” in Scripture (Scriptura Sacra est Deus incarnatus). In this sense the axiom holds good: Theologia debet esse grammatica; that is, the theologian who would understand and teach the doctrine revealed must adhere most accurately to the linguistic usage present in Scripture. Luther again and again remarks, especially in his polemical writings, that everyone who blunders in grammar must necessarily also blunder in theology. The orthodox Lutheran dogmaticians take the same view. As emphatically as they reject reason as principle in theology, so emphatically they urge the usus instrumentalis of reason, inclusive of the entire philological and logical material, so long as this serves solely to understand the contents of Scripture and does not add its own content. Quenstedt says (Systema I, 55 ff.): “One must distinguish between ‘reason’ used passively as the subject absorbing the information and ‘reason’ taken in the sense of norm as the approving principle… . The first is necessary for the cognition of everything and so also of divine things, as principium quo, for in no other way than by his intellect or reason does man understand; the latter, however, is not admitted in the cognition of divine things, as principium quod. … Without the use of reason or intellect no one can occupy himself with theology; for theology is not to be presented to the brutes and animals, which lack reason. As man therefore cannot see without eyes, cannot hear without ears, cannot taste without a tongue, so he cannot without reason — without which, of course, he is no human being (homo) —perceive what faith (which Augustine calls the ‘soul of the soul,’ sermo 250. de tempore) encompasses within its periphery… . One must distinguish between organic principles, such as grammar, logic, rhetoric, the study of languages, etc., and philosophical principles strictly so called. The first are to be employed in theology (namely, as a means to acquire theology), since without them neither the sense nor the meaning of the words can be found (grammar), nor the forms or modes of speech can be weighed (rhetoric), nor the connections or consequences be perceived nor the discourse undertaken (logic). Dr. Balthasar Meisner in his Disput. de Calvinismo fugiendo, Thesis 83, has aptly said: ‘Who among us has ever denied the proper use of reason in theology? Do we not use reason as often as we give attention to the peculiarity of the language or the structure of the entire context? “Faith cometh by hearing” (Rom. 10:17). But for hearing the use of reason is required, to distinguish word from word and to perceive the sense. Thus we do not deny that the use of reason is necessary in confirming, in disproving, in explaining, because in all things the method of instruction and the mode prescribed in logic must be observed.’ One must distinguish between the ministerium of reason, when like a maid it gives way to the mistress and madam (from the old comparison of Ambrosius, 2. de Abraliamo, c. 10) and the magisterium of reason, when it arrogates to itself judgment in things about which it is ignorant and which exceed its comprehension… . We must distinguish between reason left to itself, or judging according to its natural principles, and reason held locked within the circle of the divine Word and kept under discipline, or illumined by Holy Scripture. That the latter can judge in matters of faith, we do not deny; but we deny that judgment in matters of faith belongs to the former.”

By distinguishing between the usus rationis ministerialis and magisterialis the old theologians also decide the question whether there is a real contradiction between theology and reason, or human science (philosophy). They answer: The truth is but one. A contradiction arises only when reason, gone mad, presumes to judge things that transcend its sphere. Quenstedt writes (Systema I, 62): “The opponents raise the objection: religion contains much that is above but nothing that is contrary to reason. We answer: (a) In themselves the articles of faith are not against reason, but solely above reason; per accidens, however, it happens that they are also against reason, inasmuch as reason presumes to judge of them according to its principles and does not follow the light of the Word, but denies and impugns them. (b) The articles of faith are not only above, but contrary to, corrupt reason, which judges them to be foolishness. Smalzius insists, Disp. IV, contra Franz., p. 137: ‘Let one teach that one sentence of the Sacred Scriptures is opposed to reason and therefore reason is to be silent in the Church.’ We answer: Reason remaining in its boundaries, no truth of the Sacred Scriptures conflicts with it, but if reason leaves its boundaries, all mysteries of faith, as the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., conflict with it.” We dare not lull ourselves into believing that the struggle of men against Scripture and the Christian religion with its appeal to reason (science) will ever cease, since “the natural man” (1 Cor. 2:14) is God’s enemy (Rom. 8:7) and can only regard what is the essence of Christianity, the Gospel, as foolishness (“they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them,” 1 Cor. 2:14). This being the case, man cannot fail, as long as he has not become a Christian through contritio and fides, to contend with both his utter ignorance and his limited natural knowledge against Holy Scripture and the Christian doctrine. Quenstedt says regarding this point (Systema I, 63): “We must distinguish between philosophy considered abstracte and according to its essence, and philosophy considered concrete and according to its existence in the person corrupted by sin. According to the former mode it never is opposed to the divine truth, for there is only one truth … harmonious in regard to the objects which are subordinate to it; according to the latter mode, however, it is, because of the ignorance of the intellect and the perversion of the will, frequently employed wrongly by the philosopher for distortion and vain deception.”

2. The Scripture principle is abrogated by substituting for it the regenerate reason, or, as it is also called, pious self-consciousness, Christian experience, Christian Ego, faith consciousness, faith, spirit, etc. We have already seen (p. 66 ff.) that all these sources and norms, when they are used alongside and apart from the Bible, are simply illusions. To ascribe to the new, or regenerate, man the folly of disregarding Scripture and teaching his own ideas is to insult him. Where that is done, the old man, not the new man, is playing the theologian. The new man knows the Scriptures to be the very Word of God (John 8:47: “He that is of God heareth God’s words”) and follows the general rule given the Church: “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Whenever the Christian recollects what his real nature is, he recognizes that the inclination to teach from his own Ego instead of from Scripture is an erring, yea, wicked self-consciousness, for which he implores God’s forgiveness. Following the example of Luther and the old Lutheran theologians, Walther unceasingly inculcated this truth. He wrote for example: “Also the illumined and regenerate reason cannot be made the principle of knowledge alongside Scripture, co-ordinate with it, since the very essence of the illumined, or regenerate, reason consists in this, that it makes the Scriptures and not itself the principle of knowledge in matters of faith (2 Cor. 10:5), not to mention the fact that on this side of heaven there is no man with a perfectly renewed and illumined reason (Gen. 18:10-15).” (Lehre und Wehre 13, 99.)7 In short, the attempt of modern theology to make the “regenerate Ego” the principle of knowledge of the Christian doctrine, while at the same time rejecting Scripture as the Word of God and the only source and norm of theology, amounts in fact to an attempt to make the natural human Ego, the flesh, ruler in the Church. It is plain rationalism in the mantle of Christianity. The opinion voiced by Dr. Stoeckhardt in a discussion of Frank’s theology (Lehre und Wehre 42, 74 f.) is perfectly correct: “Frank’s theology, which battles against the rationalism of Ritschl, is itself nothing but a new style and edition of rationalism, rationalism in churchly dress. It is the natural reason which in Frank’s systems plucks apart, dismembers the Christian realities, and then again joins and harmonizes them. It is a miracle that the mill of Frank’s reason has not ground up all Christian dogmas, that Frank still permits certain elements of the Christian truth to stand. That is not due to the system, it is inconsistency… . This ‘I,’ which by its own authority passes judgment in matters of faith and truth, which fabricates and sets up dogmas, which from within constructs God, heaven, earth, and everything, in an arbitrary manner, is at bottom the ‘I,’ the ‘spirit,’ the ‘inner light,’ of the ‘enthusiasts.’ ” Whatever is vaunted as the Spirit without the Word is never the Holy Ghost. Luther: “The Holy Spirit does not work without the Word or before the Word, but He comes with and through the Word and never goes beyond the Word” (St. L. XI: 1073).

3. The Scripture principle is rejected by the demand that the Christian doctrine must not be taken from the passages that treat of the individual doctrines (sedes doctrinae), but from “the whole of Scripture.” This phrase, which certainly makes no sense, has been given currency again by “the Reformer of the 19th century,” Schleiermacher. He says (Glaubenslehre I, § 30): “Quoting individual Bible passages in dogmatics is a very precarious, yes, in and by itself an unsatisfactory procedure.” But this senseless phrase has been adopted by practically all chief representatives of modern theology, from the extreme left to the extreme right wing. We find it in Ihmels (Zentralfragen, 2d ed., p. 88f.) and prior to that in Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, 2d ed., I, p. 671 ff.). Kliefoth is right when in his criticism of Hofmann’s Schriftbeweis he calls this contrast between the whole of Scripture and the individual passages an “inconceivable concept.”8 In fact, we can obtain the whole body of the Christian doctrine only by taking each doctrine from those passages — considered of course in their context — which treat of that specific doctrine. The “whole of Scripture,” or the “whole of the Christian doctrine,” which is constructed without considering the individual passages that treat of the doctrine, is purely man’s own product. This queer talk of the “whole of Scripture” as opposed to the sedes doctrinae was invented to block the authority of Scripture entirely, while making a pretense of strict conformity to Scripture, and to make room in the Church for the theology of the “pious self-consciousness” of the theologizing subject. Kliefoth has uttered the warning that this “inconceivable concept” of the whole of Scripture is no “harmless” phrase “if it happens to enter into brainless heads, as examples show.” Kliefoth’s expression is strong and discourteous, but no stronger and more discourteous than the terms we find, e. g., in 1 Tim. 6:4: “He is bloated, knowing nothing.” To complete the picture, it should be added that not only the heads into which that “inconceivable concept” enters, but also the heads in which it originated belong in the category of the heads mentioned by Kliefoth. For this phrase owes its origin solely to the blindness — one might call it the blindness — in which a person who claims to be a teacher in the Christian Church does not yet recognize, or no longer recognizes, God’s Word as God’s Word, rejects it as the source and norm of the Christian doctrine, and is therefore engaged in substituting for the , who is Christ in His Word (Matt. 23:8; John 8:31-32), the self-consciousness of the theologizing human subject. This ignorance is so great that even Christ is amazed over it: “Why do ye not understand My speech?” (John 8:43.)

4. The Scripture principle is denied by making the Church, the doctrinal decrees of the Church (councils, synods), the Pope, etc., the arbiters of truth. According to Scripture the Church has no doctrine of its own, no doctrine alongside and without Christ’s Word. Christ is her (Matt. 23:8, 10). The Church is commanded to teach the Word of Christ (Matt. 28:20). The Church has Christ’s Word in the Word of His Apostles and Prophets (John 17:20; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 1:10-12), and in this Word the Church continues at Christ’s express command (John 8:31-32; John 15:7: “If ye abide in Me and My words abide in you”). In so far as the Church does not continue in Christ’s Word, but teaches the word of man, it forgets its calling and is “prattling,” as Luther drastically puts it.9 The teachers who do not bring Christ’s doctrine, or, in other words, the doctrine of the Apostles, are not to be received as brethren in the faith, but are to be carefully and strictly avoided as sectarians (2 John 9-11; Rom. 16:17). That the voice of the Church and the voice of Holy Scripture are not two different voices, but one and the same voice, Luther showed conclusively when Erasmus offered to subject his understanding to the Church, even if he did not understand Scripture. Luther tells him: “What is that you say, Erasmus? Is it not enough that you subject your mind to the Scriptures? Do you subject it to the decisions of the Church also? What can the Church decide that has not previously been decided in the Scriptures?” (St. L. XVIII, 1678.) The Apology calls what the Apostles and Prophets teach in their Scriptures the consensus ecclesiae, the harmonious doctrine of the whole Christian Church. “He [Peter, Acts 10:43] cites the agreement of all the Prophets. This is truly to cite the authority of the Church.” “The consensus of the Prophets is assuredly to be judged as the consensus of the Church universal.” “For Peter clearly cites the consensus of the Prophets, and the writings of the Apostles testify that they believe the same thing.” (Trigl. 145, 83; 271, 66; 273, 73.) We know, then, what to think of those who place the consensus of the Church on the level with the Scriptures as source and norm of doctrine, be it the consensus of the Church of all ages or only the consensus of a few centuries.10 All are eo ipso renouncing the Scripture principle. That is the case even when they want to call the consensus of the Church the “secondary principle.” In practice the secondary principle becomes the primary principle. For the secondary principle has been invented for the purpose of interpreting Holy Scripture or of limiting it. Whatever is made the arbiter of interpretation is placed above Scripture and is used to restrict its authority. Scripture sinks to the level of a norma normata. That was the intention, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, of both Vincens of Lerinum (d. 450) and of Geo. Calixt (d. 1656) and other Helmstedt theologians.11

With respect to the testimony of the Church two extremes must be avoided. First, Christians and Christian theologians do not despise this testimony, but take note of it, rejoice over it, and are confirmed in their faith when they see that God also in former ages raised up witnesses of the truth revealed in Scripture.12 Secondly, they do not overestimate the witness of the Church, as though it could be the foundation of the Christian faith without or alongside Scripture. Rather do they maintain that neither the pronouncements of individuals nor the resolutions of any number of persons (ecclesia repraesentativa) can make doctrines of faith or be their basis.13 The old Lutheran teachers also, by the way, refer to the fact that there is no consensus of the Church at all outside and alongside the Scriptures, not even if the consensus is limited to the first 500 years. Quenstedt gives the following reasons for this: “Many writings of the old teachers have never been published; few of those that have been published have come down to us, most of them having been lost; many of the Fathers, especially of the earliest times, wrote little or nothing, and what is left is mutilated, falsified, and corrupted.” And as the last and chief reason Quenstedt mentions: “The consensus of a few Fathers does not at once become the consensus of the whole Church.”14 The rule of Vincens of Lerinum that “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” must be accepted as truth 15 cannot be carried out in practice. The Romanists cut the Gordian knot by withdrawing behind the Pope as the authoritative interpreter of the doctrinal tradition. Protestant representatives of the principle of tradition, as Calixt, for instance, are obliged to depend on the writers of the histories of dogma; they thus miss Scripture and land in the sphere of human authority.

The Roman theologians enumerate as principles of theology Holy Scripture, tradition, the Councils, the Pope.16 In the Tridentinum, Sess. IV, we read: “This truth and discipline are contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions, which … [the Synod], following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence. But if anyone … knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid, let him be anathema.” But since the final interpretation of Scripture, tradition, the decrees of Councils, etc., rests in the hands of the Pope, he is in the end the only principle of papistic theology.17 The Papal infallibility had long ago been asserted by individual theologians and whole groups. But they disagreed on the question whether the Pope was infallible together with the Church (i.e., the Councils and the teachers of the Church) or whether he was infallible by himself. The latter view, espoused by the Jesuits, won and in 1870 was made the dogma for the whole Church. Pius IX declared: “We, the sacred Council approving, teach and so define as dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is to say, when in the discharge of his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church — is, through the divine assistance promised to the blessed Peter himself, possessed of the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine concerning faith and morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, unalterable.” 18 Roman theology, in so far as it is determined by the “infallibility” of the Pope, has as its principle the Satanic insolence of him who as God sits in the temple of God and acts as though he were God (2 Thess. 2:4). Instead of continuing, according to the divine order, in Christ’s Word, Roman theology sets above Christ’s Word the monstrous lie of Papal infallibility, which infallibility was conceived by Satan and finds acceptance among men through the working of Satan (2 Thess. 2:9-12). — This matter will be treated more fully in the chapter on “The Public Ministry,” under “The Antichrist” in Vol. III.

Roman theologians, particularly, appeal to Matt. 28:20 as proof that the testimony of the Church is a theological principle alongside the Word of Scripture. The argument runs thus: Here Christ promises His gracious and sustaining presence to His Church “unto the end of the world”; therefore it were but reasonable to assume that the Church would not err in the proclamation of the truth which it is commissioned to teach. This argument has confused some. But the very passage cited shows the futility of the argument. Christ promises, in Matt. 28:20, the Church His gracious presence after He has directed it to teach only His Word: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Christ is present with His Church through His gracious revelation and His gracious help in His Word, which the Church is commanded to teach. In so far, therefore, as the Church teaches and confesses Christ’s Word, it can, indeed, not err; in so far, however, as it teaches anything without and alongside Christ’s Word, it is not only not infallible, but also certainly errs.

5. The Scripture principle is abrogated and natural reason substituted through the appeal to private revelations, also called “immediate revelations,” or “new revelations” (revelationes immediatae, revelationes novae). By private revelations are meant such revelations regarding the Christian doctrine as some people are supposed to have received by visions, appearances, inner voice, inner light, etc. Through these private, or immediate, revelations the doctrinal revelation contained in Scripture is supposed to be explained, corrected, and supplemented. The Christian Church has in all ages been disturbed by persons who boasted new revelations alongside the Word of the Prophets and Apostles. This was the case already in the Apostolic Church. We see from such passages as 1 Cor. 14:37 and 2 Thess. 2:2 that in the Apostolic congregations “prophets” and “spiritual persons” appeared who pretended that their word was co-ordinate with the Word of the Apostles and for that reason were sharply called to order by Paul. Later there arose the Montanists, the Donatists, the Messalians, and others. At the time of the Reformation the Anabaptists, Schwenkfeldians, and others made their appearance, who rejected Luther’s insistence on the sole authority of Holy Scripture as “letter worship” and opposed the “external word” of Scripture with their so-called “inner” word as a higher revelation.19 In the era following up to the present time are found the Quakers, Labadists, Swedenborgians, Irvingites, Amana Society, Mormons, etc.20 In general, all who divorce the operation of the Holy Ghost from the Word of Scripture make private or immediate revelations their principle in theology. It is essentially correct to embrace them all under the general title Schwaermer, or “enthusiasts” (fanatici, enthusiastae).

a. This includes, first, the Papists, in so far as they make the Pope an infallible teacher outside and beyond the written Word of God. Luther depicted the situation correctly when he wrote in the Smalcald Articles: “For (indeed) the Papacy also is nothing but sheer enthusiasm, by which the Pope boasts that all rights exist in the shrine of his heart (in scrinio sui pectoris), and whatever he decides and commands with (in) his Church is spirit and right, even though it is above and contrary to Scripture and the spoken Word.” And again: “Enthusiasm … is the origin … of the Papacy.” (Trigl. 495, 4; 497, 9.)

b. All Reformed, like Zwingli and Calvin and recent Reformed theologians, such as Shedd, Hodge, and Boehl, inasmuch as they maintain that the Holy Spirit works with His saving operation immediately, outside and apart from the Word. Efficacious grace acts immediately. (See “The Cause of the Divisions Within Visible Christendom.”)

c. All modern theologians, in so far as they deny that the Scriptures are God’s infallible Word and hence, as a matter of principle, make the “pious self-consciousness,” the “religious experience,” etc., the source and norm of the Christian doctrine. This false teaching regarding the principle of theology coincides in its nature with the “in scrinio pectoris papae’ and with Zwingli’s: “For the Spirit no guide or vehicle is required, for He is Himself the Power and Conveyer who bears all things; He Himself does not need to be borne.” Accordingly we noted that the invectives used by modern theologians (paper pope, letter theology, intellectualism, etc.) for the purpose of holding up to suspicion and of rejecting the Scripture principle coincide in kind with the invectives which the Roman theologians and the Reformed ‘enthusiasts’ employed against Luther and the Lutheran Church. (See the section “Theology as Doctrine.”) So also the outcome of the modern theology, in so far as it replaces the Scripture principle with the principle of experience, is identical with that of the Papistic and Reformed “enthusiasts.” Luther: “They speak such things only in order to lead us away from Scripture and make themselves masters over us, that we should believe their dream sermons.” (St. L. V:334.)21

Scripture has definitely decided the question what one is to think of doctrinal revelations which are above and beyond Scripture. There is no promise of such revelations; on the contrary, God has directed and bound all Christians to the Last Day to the Word of the Apostles and Prophets. With this Word the period of divine revelation is closed. All Christians to the end of time come to faith through the Word of the Apostles (John 17:20). The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (Eph. 2:20). Our old theologians are right in calling attention, again and again, to the axiom which holds true of all pretended sources of theological knowledge, distinct and independent of Scripture: “New revelations in regard to the Christian doctrine either coincide with the doctrine contained in Scripture, and then they are superfluous, or they offer something else than is recorded in the Word of the Apostles and Prophets, and then they are to be rejected” (Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.; Luke 16:29-31).

The question has often been asked whether divine revelations pertaining to external events in Church or world might not be given to individual persons in our time. It does not contradict Scripture to admit the possibility and fact of such revelations.22 But it is contrary to Scripture to assume that new revelations on doctrine will be given; the revelation of doctrine has come to an end with the Word of the Apostles and Prophets.23

6. The Scripture principle is denied by the demand that the Christian religion be interpreted “historically.” We have already shown, in the chapter on “Christianity the Absolute Religion,” and more particularly in the chapter on “Theology as Doctrine,” in what sense Christianity can very well be called an historical phenomenon and in what sense the “historical interpretation” is definitely to be declined. The latter must be done when the so-called “historical interpretation” is used to criticize the Christian doctrine, which is contained in Holy Scripture. This is done on the part of modern theologians when they set aside Scripture as source and norm of Christian doctrine and offer us in place of that their “historical interpretation.” We have already quoted Richard Gruetzmacher’s correct remark that “for us the historical revelation of salvation is contained solely in the record of it given in Holy Scripture.” What we know of Christ and His doctrine we know solely from Christ’s Word, which we possess in the written Word of His Apostles and Prophets and to which Christ so emphatically directs us as to the sole medium of knowing the truth (John 8). Whoever discards this sole source and norm of the Christian doctrine and instead directs us to the historical interpretation of the student of history, is asking us to substitute human authority for the divine authority of Holy Scripture. The neologists who misuse the term “history” by opposing the Christ in His Word with the “historical Christ” ought to be able to see that they are offering the Church a product of the human Ego. The actual “historical Christ” is Christ in His Word. Luther says in his “Word of Warning to the People of Frankfurt on the Main”: “Outside His Word and without His Word we know of no Christ, much less of Christ’s teaching. For the ‘Christ’ who pretends to bring His teaching without His Word is the abominable devil out of hell, who uses Christ’s holy name and under it is peddling his infernal venom” (St. L. XVII:2015). That is a hard saying which our modern ears can hardly stand. But it states the full truth. It applies fully to the modern theologians who separate the “historical Christ” from the Christ in His Word. — In this connection we ought to recall the admission made by the modern theologians who consistently stand for the historical interpretation of Christianity. They admit that their historical interpretation can never lead to certainty, but would necessarily leave the contents of the Christian doctrine in doubt. (See the chapter “Christianity the Absolute Religion.”)

From the above it is clear that the number of essentially different sources and norms of religious knowledge is exactly two. Whatever is not taken entirely from Scripture has its origin in the human Ego and is fittingly given the general name rationalism, whether it is called that outright or whether some euphemistic circumlocution is used. Whoever appeals to natural reason as the source and norm of theology appeals to his natural human Ego, since natural reason knows nothing of the Gospel and, when it does stray into theology (), necessarily reduces the Christian religion to a system of morality (ethics, “opinio legis”), for all that is left to reason is a little knowledge of the divine Law. Whoever appeals to the illumined reason, the regenerate Ego, etc., is likewise appealing to the natural reason, since the illumined reason — or the new man — is so constituted that it will take the Christian doctrine solely from Scripture and judge it solely by Scripture. Whoever attempts to draw the Christian doctrine from the so-called “whole of Scriptures,” and not from the specific passages in which the Christian doctrine is revealed, thereby actually declares that he is offering solely a product of his own thoughts to the Church and the world. Whoever appeals to the Church, tradition, the Pope, etc., as source and norm of theology apart from and alongside Scripture, is likewise appealing to human authorities, since the Christian Church has no doctrine whatever apart from and alongside Scripture. Whoever appeals in matters of the Christian doctrine to private revelations apart from and alongside Scripture is likewise making his human Ego the source and norm of Christian doctrine, because the Christian doctrine is set down in the Word of the Apostles and Prophets as a fixed quantity, adding to or subtracting from which is forbidden to all men. And we have seen that also by the so-called “historical interpretation” of Christianity fallible human opinion is made the teacher in the house of God instead of the certain infallible Word of God.

We conclude this section with a remark of Luther in the Smalcald Articles: “In a word, ‘enthusiasm’ inheres in Adam and his children from the beginning [from the first fall] to the end of the world, [its poison] having been implanted and infused in them by the old dragon, and is the origin, power [life], and strength of all heresy” (Trigl. 497, 9). Whoever is no longer dominated by the ‘enthusiasm’ should in no wise credit that to himself, but should ascribe it alone to the gracious working of God, just as Luther ascribed to the grace of God his ability to dismiss all thoughts that arose in his mind without God’s Word.