_20_Theology and Method

This chapter on theological “methods” is not concerned with the question of the principium cognoscendi in theology. That matter has been fully treated in the preceding chapters. Every method, under whatever name, must be rejected which sets up another principle of cognition outside Scripture (extra Scripturam), be it the church dogma or the “faith consciousness” of the theologian. In this chapter we shall discuss the order in which the doctrines of Scripture should be presented for the purpose of instruction (docendi causa). We might have given this chapter the heading “Theology and the External Arrangement of the Several Scripture Doctrines.” But we retain the term method because it is customary to speak especially of the synthetic and the analytic method. In this connection we shall also discuss the importance or relative unimportance of thus grouping the doctrines within a corpus doctrinae.

Among the old Lutheran theologians some favor the synthetic, others the analytic method. Flacius holds that “theology is most fittingly presented per synthesin”; 199 Baier, on the other hand, asserts that “the parts of the revealed theology should be grouped iuxta ordinem analyticum.” 200 In arranging the subject matter the synthetic method proceeds from cause to effect or by composing the whole from the given parts. The analytical method, however, proceeds from effect to cause or seeks to derive the whole from a particular part, e. g., from the purpose (finis).201

Applied to theology, the synthetic method treats first of God, the source of all things, including the salvation of man, then of the causes and means by which fallen man is led to salvation, and, finally, of the last things, concluding with eternal life. The analytical method begins with the last things, eternal life, next considers man, who is to be led to salvation, and finally presents the causes and means of salvation (Patris gratiosa voluntas, Filii redemptio, Spiritus Sancti gratia applicatrix, media gratiae, etc.). The later theologians preferred the analytical method. They held that since theology is a practical aptitude, the goal (finis: salvation) must be the first consideration; next, the subject who is to be brought to this goal (subiectum operationis: man); and, finally, the causes and means by which the subiectum operationis is brought to the goal.202

The synthetic method has been used, generally speaking, by the dogmaticians from Melanchthon to Gerhard, the chief representatives of this period being Melanchthon, Chemnitz, Hutter, Gerhard, Brochmand.203

The dogmaticians of a later period used the analytical. Among them are Dannhauer, Friedrich Koenig, Calov, Quenstedt, Baier, Hollaz.204 But the advocates of the analytical method are not agreed in the sequence of the doctrines. Baier, e. g., discusses the last things: death, resurrection, the Judgment, and the destruction of the world immediately in connection with salvation, the finis theologiae ex parte hominis, before speaking of the doctrine of sin and of redemption by Christ. Quenstedt, however, places the doctrines mentioned at the end of his dogmatics.

The important matter is not which method is employed in grouping the doctrines. The all-important point is that the theologian observe the principle of divine revelation and that he take all doctrines solely from Scripture, lest, a la Procrustes, he trim them to suit his opinion or the “faith” of the theologian.205 The theologian must reject every method, by whatsoever name it may be known, which disregards the Word of Scripture and invents something. No questing method has a place in theology, either as to the content or as to the correlation of the doctrines. Only that method has a place in theology which as a matter of principle limits itself to arranging the matter given in the revelation of Scripture, as is done in the so-called local method, according to which all Scripture revelation on a certain doctrine is collocated at one place, locus (hence the several doctrines are fittingly called loci). And this is the underlying principle of the synthetic method.

Modern theologians charge that those dogmaticians who use the local method atomize the dogmatical material and do not properly set forth the inner unity of the system, while the later theologians, who used the analytical method, seem to be more scientific.206 It must be granted that the analytical method in its outward form meets the demands of modern theology better; for just this, that the Christian doctrine is not taken from Holy Scripture, but is developed from the Ego of the theologian, constitutes the scientific character of this theology. Thus the analytical method applied to theology would seem to deduce the Christian doctrines through logical deductions from the purpose, that is, to develop them, instead of taking them from Scripture. Walther used to say in his lectures: “The analytical method attempts to find the truth. But in theology we cannot deduce the means from the purpose.” However, in vindication of the later theologians it must be said that they follow the analytical method merely for the external arrangement of the doctrine, while in presenting the individual doctrines they maintain the Scripture principle. Baier (I, 79) expressly emphasizes this: “It is the very nature of things that the knowledge of the purpose, obtained from the divine revelation, is naturally prior to the knowledge of the means, likewise obtained from the divine revelation.” For that reason Kirn is not ready to differentiate between the “Old Protestant” theologians; they all maintain the Scripture principle. He says: “Though some of the old Protestant dogmaticians prefer the synthetic, others the analytic method, nevertheless all employ essentially the same method, which may be designated briefly as the method of the formal [?] authority of Scripture. It consists in this, that the individual Biblical statements which are understood to be a revelation of doctrine … directly determine content and form of the dogmatic statement. This method finds its support in the theory [?] of the verbal inspiration of Scripture.” 207

Kirn is right in saying that the uniform method of the old Protestant dogmatics has its support in the verbal inspiration of Scripture. The old dogmaticians would not have insisted so strongly on the sola Scriptura — also against dissenters in their own midst, e. g., against Calixt’s Consensus quinquesaecularis — if they had not been convinced that Holy Scripture is God’s inspired Word. But Verbal Inspiration is not, as Kirn holds, a “theory,” that is, the private opinion of the old Protestant dogmaticians, but the determinative opinion of Christ and His Apostles. It is therefore imperative for the sake of clarity in our theological instruction to divide the Protestant theologians of our day into two classes, according to their declared attitude towards Holy Scripture. The question is not whether they employ the synthetic or the analytic method, nor whether, within these methods, they use also the definition method or the causal method or both. The question is whether they still regard Holy Scripture as the Word of God and let Scripture alone be the source and norm of Christian doctrine, or whether they have already become so liberal that they no longer regard Scripture as the Word of God and the only source and norm of theology and have resolved to offer the Christian Church an Ego product. With the first class a discussion and understanding is possible even where error exists. With the latter class an understanding is impossible, because there is no common ground. Contra principium negantem disputari non potest — with him who denies the principle one cannot argue. At the same time we shall charitably give credit to certain modern theologians who have drifted away from the Scripture principle for what they inconsistently still retain as Christian doctrine. However, it is our duty emphatically to remind students of theology that all theologians who have relinquished the Scripture principle belong, according to Scripture, in one class.208

In order to wean the Christian Church from the Scripture method to the Ego method, modern theology raises the objection that in presenting the Christian doctrine from Scripture the theologian would not know where to begin.209 It would, indeed, be an embarrassing situation if those who abide by the Scripture principle did not know at all where to begin in writing a dogmatics, for if it had no beginning, it would have neither a middle nor an end. In short, all who cling to the Scripture principle in dogmatics would actually be without dogmatics and, no doubt, rightly so. In answer we point, first, to the fact that Luther and the old dogmaticians, though they adhered stubbornly to the Scripture principle, were not at all “perplexed” about the beginning. It is well known that Luther at the end of his “Confession Regarding Christ’s Supper” recites his faith “before God and all the world,” “point by point.” (St. L. XX: 1094 ff.) He begins with the “sublime article of the divine Majesty, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three distinct Persons, are the one single, natural, true God.” Then follow the doctrines of the Person of Christ, of the office of Christ, of sin, of justification (by faith in Christ in contrast to all work righteousness), of the means of grace, of the Church. He closes with the resurrection of the dead. The joyous and confident manner in which Luther confesses his faith “point by point” dispels the thought that Luther was puzzled as to a starting point. In his Catechisms Luther uses still another point of departure, viz., the Ten Commandments.

The old dogmaticians do indeed employ opposite poles as points of departure, because some use the synthetic method, others the analytic. As Flacius points out, the former begins where the latter ends; and while he prefers the synthetic method, he finds value also in the analytic method, for in both the finis theologiae, eternal life, is presented as man’s greatest concern (Matt. 19:16).210 Thus we, too, would not dare to deny the right of dogmatic existence to the one or the other because he employs a different grouping of the several doctrines. For both groups, as Kirn admits, “follow an essentially uniform method,” namely, they take the several doctrines from Scripture. That being the case, it matters not whether we start at the beginning, at the end, or in the middle. If we begin with Scripture and abide by Scripture, we shall soon arrive at the heart of the Christian doctrine, namely, the doctrine of the remission of sin by faith in the incarnate Son of God, who is the Propitiation for our sin and that of the whole world. The reason for this lies in the compact inner unity inherent in the theology taken from Scripture. We could begin with eternity, with the eternal Gospel of Christ, which was kept secret since the world began but now is made manifest and by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, is made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Rom. 16:25-26). St. John thus begins both his Gospel and his First Epistle with the eternal Son of God made manifest in time, and from here he soon arrives at the center, namely, the remission of sins by faith in the blood and death of the Son of God. We could also begin with that eternity which follows for us human beings in time, namely, with the bliss of those “which came out of great tribulation and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:14-17; Matt. 25:34). Here, too, we would have no difficulty in connecting what Scripture says of man and his wretchedness in sin, as also of the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, with the appropriation of the finished redemption. We might also begin in the middle, e. g., with the angel’s message: “Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10-11). Going from here back to the beginning and forward to the end, we could incorporate what Scripture teaches of man’s mortal guilt and of God’s saving grace. In short, it is immaterial where one begins in presenting the Christian doctrine, provided he begins, continues, and ends with Scripture.

Only one point of departure is ruinous and forbidden within the Christian Church, and that is “the religious experience,” “the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject.” The theologian who rejects Holy Scripture as God’s infallible Word and draws and regulates his teaching not from Holy Scripture but from his own Ego, acts contrary to the instruction of Christ to continue in His Word and the Apostle’s denial of the licentia docendi to every teacher not consenting to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Such a one is suffering from delusion and ignorance. Also Ihmels represents this unscriptural starting point as the only feasible one. He writes: “Even if Scripture intended to give a uniform body of doctrine,211 and if it therefore would be possible for the dogmatician simply to copy this body of doctrine, still he could not on that account be content with this, since dogmatics as a matter of principle aims at presenting the knowledge of faith.” Certainly, dogmatics aims as a matter of principle at presenting the knowledge of faith, but the knowledge of that faith which continues in the Word of Christ, in the Word of the Apostles and Prophets, in the Word of Scripture, of that faith which always speaks only vis-à-vis with Scripture. Faith without Scripture is a faith without foundation. It is not a faith that says, “Speak Lord, for Thy servant heareth,” but it is unbelief, for it “believeth not the record that God gave of His Son” and thus “hath made God a liar” (1 John 5:10).

This may suffice on the external grouping of the Christian doctrines within the corpus doctrinae. In this connection, however, we ought to review the charges which modern theology raises against all champions of Scriptural theology.

The Christian Church of our day dare not forget that the modern theologians who draw their teaching from their own consciousness instead of from Scripture are deadly enemies, who aim to dislodge the Christian Church from its position on the Word and thus from the foundation of its faith. Modern theologians manifest their hostility toward the Scripture principle by casting aspersions upon the old Scripture theologians and their writings, as well as upon the modern representatives of the sola Scriptura principle, whom they stigmatize as “repristination theologians.” This censure is directed also against the Missouri Synod and its sister synods. Naturally, these aspersions are in the form of definite charges. This, we feel, ought to be pointed out here specially, though the matter has been often discussed in other connections.

The charge is preferred against the theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that they considered Holy Scriptures to be God’s Word, or, as it is usually expressed, that they “identified” Scripture and God’s Word. We read in Nitzsch-Stephan: “The fault … lies in this, that they distinguished imperfectly or not at all between the Bible and the Word of God.” “The doctrine of inspiration was fully developed by the Protestant scholastics of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries ever since the example set by Johann Gerhard as early as 1610 in his Locus de Scriptura and continued in 1625 in his Exegesis Uberior Loci de Scriptum. They thought they could oppose the Catholics, the Socinians, the Arminians, and other factions successfully only if the divine authority of Scripture were extended to the letter [to the words of Scripture]. The Bible was … a divine textbook of religion.” 212 This led to the second accusation that because they derived their doctrine solely from Scripture, the old theologians exerted a baneful influence on the Christian Church. They are said to have fostered “intellectualism,” a lifeless formal Christianity, whereas a vital Christianity can be attained only when the teacher draws from his “Christian experience” or his “pious consciousness.” A further accusation is that there is practically no doctrinal disagreement among the old theologians, from Luther to Hollaz. In other words, the individual dogmaticians did not reproduce the Christian doctrine independently; they operated on the premise that in the content of the inherited doctrine “nothing could be changed and that progress could consist only in a more precise elaboration of the terminology of sacrosanct statutes.” Even Quenstedt produced “hardly anything” new.213 We can understand that this absence of disagreement seems strange to modern theology, for in its own midst it notes a “seemingly endless amount of differences,” after it had agreed on a “uniform method” —the method not to take the Christian doctrine from the one Holy Scripture, but to procure it from the “religious experience” of the many theologizing individuals. Even the conservatives among the experience theologians regard agreement in the Christian doctrine as an abnormality. “Pure doctrine” is introduced with a “so-called.” That is the reason why the “essential agreement” of the old theologians through two centuries appears uncanny to the modern theologians.

They seek therefore, and also find, an explanation for this fact. But their explanation is historically incorrect. For they claim that the old dogmaticians had universally become guilty of “dogmatical exegesis,” had interpreted Scripture according to a “churchly system of doctrine,” particularly according to the Formula of Concord. Not only Quenstedt is charged with a lack of a “healthy research in Scripture,” but also Chemnitz is accused of “interpreting Melanchthon’s Loci according to the canon of the Formula of Concord.” The same accusation is raised by the great majority of modern theologians against the entire “old Protestant dogmatics.”214 We quote here what we have presented at length in another place:215 “We cannot but term this talk current fiction that is being circulated with no effort at verification, viz., that the Lutheran dogmaticians were men who merely recorded dogmas according to the traditional dogmatics and the lead of the Confessions, and that they were little concerned about Scriptural evidences and the extraction of doctrines from Scripture. Whoever has taken the pains to study, even superficially, such works as those of Gerhard, Quenstedt, Calovius, had his opinion of these men changed completely, if he studied so much as a single locus. With Gerhard the presentation of the doctrine from Scripture is the beginning, the middle, and the end. The passages adduced in then defense by the heretics are considered by Gerhard so thoroughly according to their context and the usus loquendi of Scripture that, if anything, he overdid a good thing. Quenstedt, who has been called the great ‘bookkeeper of Lutheran theology,’ in his great dogmatic work offers in the notes to the and in the sections (corroboration) and (refutation) principally exposition of Scripture. Calov’s greatness as a Scripture theologian is evident not only in his Biblia Illustrata, but in all his major works. It was Calov, too, who over and over impressed it on the mind of his students of theology that knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was far more necessary than the study of the Fathers and the Scholastics. Thesis 4 of his Theol. Antisyncretistica reads: ‘For the student of theology the knowledge of the Hebrew and the Greek language is far more necessary than the study of scholastic theology or of the Fathers or of philosophy.’ Meusel’s Lexikon very aptly remarks on the fashionable disparagement of the old theologians as exegetes: ‘The Scripture proof occupies a prominent and extended space in the old Lutheran dogmatics. Especially the authors of the Loci, but also those of the later Systemata are fully in earnest in regarding Holy Scripture not merely as a touchstone for testing the doctrine derived elsewhere, but as its principle and source, and from it derive the truths of dogma, which they prove logically and defend against the objections of the opponents, so that the dogmatic writings of, e. g., Chemnitz and John Gerhard are a mine of most thorough exegetical investigation.” (Sub voce “Schriftbeweis,” VI, 93.) The home of the “dogmatical exegesis” is not to be found in the theology of the 16th and 17th centuries, as the accusation reads, but is found in the accuser, in the camp of modern theology. This theology emphatically refuses to permit the teaching of Scripture to be the source and norm of its faith. That would be, according to their own express declarations, an “intellectualistic” use of Scripture. This theology interprets and judges the Scriptures according to its own view, according to the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject. That is certainly “dogmatical exegesis” in the full sense of the word. And this “dogmatical exegesis” is the mother of the “seemingly endless amount” of doctrinal differences which are causing modern theology some embarrassment — in spite of the occasional expressions of joy over “the multitude of individualistic faiths.” That there is no such doctrinal difference during the period from Luther to Hollaz is due to the fact, as Kirn pointed out, that “the old Protestant dogmaticians, though some prefer the synthetic method, others the analytic, all follow an essentially uniform method,” namely, the method of taking the Christian doctrine out of Holy Scripture. This uniform method results in a uniform product, scil., unity of doctrine. God has given Holy Scripture such a form that the knowledge of the truth is not only possible, but that straying from the truth is impossible as long as we continue in the words of Scripture. — So much on the derogatory criticism leveled by modern theology against the persons and writings of the old Lutheran dogmaticians.

The same scathing criticism is leveled against those theologians and church bodies of our day that still accept Scripture as the Word of God and therefore insist upon taking the Christian doctrine solely from Scripture and having it judged solely by Scripture. This disapproval becomes all the more vehement because of the fear that the Church of today may again receive Scriptures as the Word of God and thus discredit the theology of the pious self-consciousness. On the one hand, modern theology, as has been stated repeatedly, speaks with great self-assurance. For example: “The dogmatic method is today comparatively uniform.” “No one bases his dogmatics in the old Protestant manner on the norma normans, the Bible.” “In our day the orthodox doctrine of inspiration has hardly any significance in dogmatics.” The few theologians who still advocate it are “laggards,” “their number is small, their labor unsuccessful, and their indignation at the comrades who are pressing forward on new paths impresses no one.” On the other hand, we hear the fear expressed that what has been abolished and lies prostrate might awaken to new life, for while the few theologians who as “laggards” make no impression on their professional comrades, they are “not without danger for the Church.” Horst Stephan first quieted the camp of modern theology with the assurance: “Today the doctrine of inspiration has been given up by the scientific theology,” but he added immediately: “Only among the lay orthodoxy … it still has a strong hold.” 216

We need not be surprised, therefore, that particularly also those American Lutherans who cling to the Scripture principle and consequently are united in the Christian doctrine are regarded as an undesirable part of the Christian Church and, as champions of the “repristination theology,” are relegated to the background. This criticism is aimed particularly at the Missouri Synod and its publications. Dr. Walther, who is rightly regarded as the leader among the fathers of the Missouri Synod, is stigmatized in Zoeckler’s Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschaften 217 as a curiosity beside Kohlbruegge, Caussen, and Kuyper because he taught the inspiration of Holy Scripture “in the old orthodox sense.” Walther is classified with the “repristination theologians” of the nineteenth century. Others have called him the “citation theologian,” and by that they meant to indicate — though not always — that he is not to be classified as a Scripture theologian. In the United States as well as in Germany and other countries Walther has been both severely censured and also praised, the latter, however, with reservations.218 In the Preface to Lehre und Wehre, 1875, Walther discusses and refutes the charge that the old Protestant theologians from Luther to Hollaz lacked a scientific spirit in the apprehension of theological problems, were guilty of a mechanical use of Scripture by their direct appeal to the “It is written,” advocated mere intellectualism, accepted the traditional doctrines without investigation, etc. All these accusations Walther proves false not only by adducing counterarguments, but by pointing out that the much-maligned theology has produced results, as is evident in the Christian activity in congregations, pastoral conferences, and synodical meetings of the Missouri Synod. Walther showed which science the Church must zealously cultivate and which science it must bar according to God’s will. The science which the Church should foster and regard as a precious gift of God includes all secular knowledge which the Church needs as an external apparatus to carry out its commission in the world, the teaching and preaching of the Gospel. This includes whatever serves for the general training of the mind —what we usually call the “humanities,” classical learning. In particular Walther stresses with Luther the study of history, the classical languages, and for fully equipped theologians the study of the original languages of Holy Scripture. He says: “The spirit of Carlstadt, the Anabaptists, and other ‘enthusiasts,’ who despise science as something worthless, yes, dangerous and carnal, and, instead, pride themselves on the impulses of the ‘spirit,’ has no place among us. We are not of the mind that the Church should flee into the desert and for its self-preservation isolate itself from the unbelieving world so that the enemies have their way with the educated unbelievers who can be reached by the Gospel only in a certain form and ultimately lead them to destruction, while the Church restricts its work exclusively to the uneducated people. No, we recognize it as our sacred duty to become all things unto all men, in order by all means to save some. We heartily agree with Melanchthon when on one occasion he wrote: ‘An Iliad of evils is an unlettered theology’ (Corpus Ref. XI, 278).” Walther points out how earnestly Luther urged the education in all “free arts” as valuable for all ranks and adds: “How could we call ourselves Lutherans, yes, even Christians, if we were despisers of science?” 219

Walther also speaks at length on the question in what sense science is not to be granted the right of existence in the Church. He writes: “We will have nothing to do with a science which would play the lord and master over Scripture, which instead of serving to ascertain the meaning of the Scripture truths wants to sit in judgment on it and correct it according to science, which, instead of remaining in its sphere, wants to make the laws that happen to apply to its domain universally applicable, including the domain of Scripture. Such a we regard as both idolatrous and unscientific. We agree fully with Melanchthon when he says: ‘As it would be insanity to say that the Christian doctrine could be judged according to the rules of the cobbler’s trade, so they are in error who invest philosophy with the ability to judge theology’ (Scholia in episi, ad Col., p. 68). Though science may consider the results of its research as absolutely certain truths, we do not regard science, but the Scriptures as infallible. If the results of scientific research contradict the clear Scriptures, we are a priori certain that they are nothing but positive error, even though we are not able to prove them erroneous except by an appeal to the Scriptures. When we must choose between science and Scripture, we say with Christ, our Lord: ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35) and with the holy Apostle: ‘We bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ’ (2 Cor. 10:5). We do not wait for science to establish a foundation for us. We have it already; and prior to all scientific investigation and scrutiny it stands as firm as our God, who has laid it. The findings of science can neither give us the faith nor rob us of it. We stand on a rock; we know that not even the gates of hell, much less human science, can prevail against it. Therefore we laugh at all enemies and their scientific battering rams and siege artillery with which in insane rage they attack this rock towering over the turbulent waters of this world, towering as high as heaven. For thus says the Lord: ‘Whoever shall fall on this Stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder’ (Matt. 21:44).”220

Walther also exposes the abuse which modern theology practices with the so-called regenerate Ego or with the illumined reason. He says: “Illumination does not provide reason with a light alongside of Scripture. Illumination rather consists in this, that through the working of the Holy Ghost the Word of the Prophets and Apostles has become its only light in matters of faith…. In so far as it tries to argue against the articles of faith from its own premises, it is not regenerate, since the regenerate reason argues from the premises of God’s Word.” 221 Walther also warns the Christian Church earnestly against the opinion that the methods of modern science can augment the content of theology. He enforces the warning thus: “We consider the Holy Scripture as so clear in regard to the objects of our faith that we cannot entertain the faintest hope that any article of faith until now unknown and hidden will be, or has even now been, disclosed to us through the great advances which modern science has made. We do not believe that the Church grows in knowledge through the gradual construction of dogmas. Rather we believe that the Church of the first century was already in possession of all truly Biblical doctrines. We do not regard the Apostolic Church as a Church in its infancy, growing gradually to manhood through the labor of scientifically trained theologians; on the contrary, we are firmly persuaded that the Church, in regard to the clarity and purity of its knowledge, resembles the moon, that now waxes, now wanes, and at times even experiences sad eclipses. We disavow not only such scientific contributions as directly contradict the Biblical truth, but also such as are meant to augment our Biblical theology; for God does not only forbid men to contradict His Word, but just as strictly forbids them to add anything to it (Deut. 12:32).”222

Regarding the attempt to harmonize theology and science Walther has this to say: “We are certain that there cannot be or ever is a real contradiction between Christian theology and true science, science in abstracto. But we are equally certain that it is not nor can it be the task of a theologian to reconcile our Biblical theology and science in concreto. The charge is indeed valid that in our efforts to lead the present unbelieving generation back to faith we make no attempt to demonstrate to the world the harmony of faith with science. But we see no reproach in this charge; rather we glory in it, and we will not, by the grace of God, permit anyone ever to rob us of this glorying. For we are very certain that it is not possible to help the present apostate world with the lie that the divinely revealed truth is in perfect accord with the wisdom of this world; only the preaching of the divine foolishness, of the old unaltered Gospel, can help the world. Paul as well as the history of the Church of all ages and of every Christian testifies that the ‘foolish Gospel’ is the power of God unto salvation to all that believe, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. I:16). A person who has been won for Christianity by showing him that Christianity can pass the sharpest probe of science is not yet won; his faith is no faith.”223

To refute the charge that a return to the theology of Luther and the dogmaticians is “a slavish subjection to the doctrinal decision of the dogmaticians or of Luther or of the Symbols,” Walther extends the following general invitation: “Come and see! Go into our church body from parish to parish, from church to church, and see whether you there find a so-called dead orthodoxy ruling and not rather a living knowledge derived from experience and matured by internal struggles. Visit our pastoral conferences and observe whether you find there that attitude which regards the public ministry merely as a means for a livelihood, or not rather an active theological life and the concern to know how a servant of Christ should comport himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God (1 Tim. 3:15). Take part in our synodical conventions, and note whether you there find a turare in verba magistri and not rather that mind of Luther: ‘Unless I am overcome and convinced with testimonies of Holy Scripture or with manifest, clear, and plain arguments and reasons, I can and will retract nothing.’”224

Because of the array of quotations from Lutheran dogmaticians in his book The Voice of Our Church on the Question Concerning the Church and the Ministry,225 Walther was branded a “citation theologian.” He refutes this charge as follows: “When we Lutherans in America again unfolded the good old banner of our Church and closed ranks around it, while roundabout us Zwinglianism, ‘enthusiasm,’ and rationalism were sailing under the Lutheran colors, the cry immediately went up: Another new sect! Some cried: You are on the way to Rome! Others: You are unionistic! Still others: You are independents! Others again: You are Pietists, Enthusiasts, Donatists, Calvinists! — And who can name all the sects that were said to have arisen and been reborn in us? In short, we were said to be anything except what we expressly declared ourselves to be: Confessors of the doctrine of the Reformation, Lutherans. What could we do under these circumstances if we did not want to bear the name of a sect? As long as men denied that we were true Lutherans, we were obliged to appeal constantly to our precious Confessions and the old faithful teachers of our Church as our witnesses. And we are of the opinion that we have done it in a manner that whoever was open to conviction was also compelled to see that we did not follow those faithful fathers of our Church blindly but from personal conviction, that we do not mechanically repeat and imitate, but that we are their sons, so that at all times we could say: ‘I believed, therefore have I spoken.’”226

On the charge that the Lutheran Church in America had substituted the Symbols for the Scriptures or interpreted Scripture according to the Symbols, thus committing “symbolatry,” Walther answers: “Incomparably valuable though the pure Confessions of our Church have been to us, still we never submitted even to them as to a law of dogma imposed upon us, but we rather received them with joyous chanksgiving to God for His unutterable grace because we found in them our own confession. Our Lutheran Church in America had to fight many a strenuous battle with the proud sects, whom, of course, we could not persuade with the testimony of our fathers, but whoever has witnessed these battles knows that God’s written Word has proved to be a victorious weapon also in our weak hands. The fact is that those who call our theology the theology of the 17th century do not know us. Highly as we value the immense work done by the great Lutheran dogmaticians of this period, still they are not in reality the ones to whom we returned; we have returned, above all, to our precious Concordia and to Luther, whom we have recognized as the man whom God has chosen to be the Moses of His Church of the New Covenant, to lead His Church out of the bondage of Antichrist, under the pillar of the cloud and the pillar of fire of the sterling and unalloyed Word of God. The dogmatic works of the 17th century, though storehouses of incalculably rich treasures of knowledge and experience, so that with joy and pleasure we profit from them day and night, are nevertheless neither our Bible nor our confession; rather do we observe in them already a pollution of the stream that gushed forth in crystal purity in the sixteenth century.” 227

Walther’s description agrees with the facts. The author of this dogmatics can testify on the basis of his long experience with our Church’s congregational synodical life that there is no foundation for the charge that our Church has fallen prey to a mere “repristination theology” plus a “mechanical apprehension of Scripture” and a “dead orthodoxy.” That weaknesses and faults in greater or lesser degree became apparent, and appear also today, is self-evident in the ecclesia militans.228

It might appear to be somewhat out of place in a dogmatic work to give such a rather detailed description of the state of our Lutheran Church in America. However, it should be borne in mind, in the first place, that the charge is frequently made that by its adherence to the Scripture principle our Church has actually propagated a dead orthodoxy and hence must be regarded as an evil in the Church. An oratio pro domo is therefore in place. Moreover, this self-defense must also constantly lead to a self-examination. If we recall the treasures which God gave our fathers and which through His grace are still considered our greatest heritage, we shall at the same time urgently admonish ourselves, the present and the future generation, to continue in the ways of the Early Church, of the Church of the Reformation, and of the fathers of our Synod. Finally, we dare not lose sight of the welfare of the Church Universal. Present-day theologians rightly insist that dogmaticians dare not isolate themselves, but must come to grips with current theological thinking and the resultant church life. As we examine the present state of the Church and its theology, we cannot but notice that it is in a state of great perplexity. True, the flight of theology from Holy Scripture and its withdrawal into the “impregnable fortress” of the pious self-consciousness has been called a necessary advance in the theological method. But this shift in theological fronts has caused considerable uneasiness because of the resultant confusion in doctrine. This chaos is regarded as an ideal condition only by the extreme left which with Lessing does not desire any “certainty of the truth” at all; still there are voices in the camp of modern theology asking whether, after all, a return to the forsaken fortress of the divine authority of Scripture ought not to be considered. These voices have to date made no noticeable impression on the mass of the Ego theologians. In strong self-delusion they ever again express the fear that with the return to the Scripture principle, “dead orthodoxy” would move into the Christian Church. Lutherans in other lands should note Walther’s detailed description of the situation in our Lutheran Church in America, which has remained in the old fortress and in it and from it gained its victories. What had proved its worth in the Lutheran Church of America might also prove to be the right means to build the Church in other lands. Experto crede Ruperto, Luther was accustomed to say when he extolled the power of God’s Word.

If the theological professors and pastors in Germany would by God’s grace return to the theological method of Luther and the Lutheran dogmaticians (sola Scriptura and sola gratia, resp., satisfactio vicaria), there would, according to the divine promise, also in Germany again bloom forth a truly Lutheran church life, and in place of the confusion of doctrine there would be again agreement in doctrine; for “if ye continue in My Word, then … ye shall know the truth” (John 8:31-32). The theologians of Germany must return to the theology which they censure in the “strictly confessional Lutheran Church of America” as repristination theology. Franz Delitzsch ( 1890) had the same conviction. In the preface of a work published by him in 1839 for the 300th anniversary of the Reformation in the city of Leipzig and bearing the title Luthertum und Luegentum229 he answers the charge that he practices a repristination theology: “I confess without shame that in matters of faith I am 300 years behind our time, because I came to see, after wandering a long time in the mazes of error, that the truth is but one, and indeed a truth eternal, immutable, and, since it is revealed by God, in no need of sifting or improvement,” and then goes on to say of Holy Scripture: “It alone is the foundation on which the Christian Church bids defiance to the gates of hell, the touchstone distinguishing truth from error, according to which the Church judges but should also itself be judged…. The Church is placed over this Word not as judge, but as steward, of whom God will demand account…. You [neologists] flatter yourselves with having Luther as patron. Never, however, does Luther by the term ‘Word of God’ understand anything else than the letter of Holy Scripture, never the inspiration of the inner light, the vagaries of blind reason, or the illusions of the mistaken feeling, but always the written Word, according to the simple sense of the words, according to its clear meaning, to the exclusion of all human mediation, falsification, and spiritualization….” Of the old Lutheran theologians Delitzsch says: “Those old Lutheran teachers were not merely erudite, but also sanctified theologians, trained in the school of the Holy Ghost, filled with heavenly wisdom, sweet consolation, and a living knowledge of God; God’s Word was implanted in their hearts, it was fused with their faith, and turned into sap and strength in them…. ‘Ask thy father, and he will show thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee’ (Deut. 32:7). ‘Thus said the Lord: Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls’ (Jer. 6:16). I preach retrogression to you: Return to the Word of God, which you have forsaken. Your ‘enlightenment’ is to me a dark, starless, frightful night; infatuated, you have gotten your terms mixed, else you could not compare your Egyptian darkness, which is God’s punishment for your rejection of the light of the Reformation, to a sunny day.” After discussing the doctrines of justification and the means of grace, which were brought to light again by the Reformation, Delitzsch closes his jubilee essay with these words: “… What I have voiced and sought to defend is nothing but the faith of the old Lutheran Church, which our forefathers confessed 300 years ago on Pentecost Day with fervent thanksgiving to God as their faith. Search the Scriptures; you will find and see that this faith is the Lutheran, the Christian faith, based on the immutable and imperishable Word of eternal truth. This faith has nothing in common with confused doubt, brooding gloom, and sickly decadence, as many imagine; no, indeed, it produces bright eyes, good cheer, and strong vigor. The enlightened reason recognizes its incontestable truth; the regenerate heart finds in it celestial consolation, blessed peace, and rich solace. This faith prevails against the gates of hell and leads an eternal triumphal march through the portals of death. Should we, my friends, relinquish such a tried and firm and joyous and victorious faith for a Christianity that is cut in half, lamed on both sides, and attempts to combine Christ and Belial, or even for an ‘enlightenment’ that is proud of its folly, that gives God’s Word the lie and idolizes reason, that can amuse us in life, but in death cannot console us? We would be acting foolishly towards ourselves and inexcusably towards our descendants.” And even ten years later (1849), when he was professor of theology in Rostock, Delitzsch not only sent his greetings to his American friends of “strictly confessional trend,” but he also renewed his confession to the Lutheran Confession and added the admonition to cling to this faith, because in it lay the “future” of the Lutheran Church. “What a glorious future is in store for our Church if it provides the lamps of its good confession with the oil of the Spirit and without halting hurries to meet the coming Lord! All you beloved brethren across the sea, let us watch and pray in order not to lose the heritage of this future!” Under the pressure of the “unscientific science,” as Walther used to express it, the later Delitzsch forsook his own testimony of the truth. But that does not deprive his earlier testimony of its truth, as little as the later Melanchthon’s deviation from the right way made the truth originally confessed by him impotent.

The theology of Germany relinquished Scripture as the Word of God more and more and walked in the footsteps of Schleiermacher, the “Reformer of the 19th century,” who did not lead the Church and its theology back onto the rock of God’s Word, as the Reformer of the 16th century did, but dragged Church and theology into the slough of subjectivism by giving out the slogan that the Christian doctrine must not be drawn out of Scripture, but from the allegedly pious Ego of the theologizing subject, from the “experience,” etc. In this slough of subjectivism well-nigh the entire theology of Germany, as far as the public teachers are concerned, is at present floundering.

In the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift (1923, p. 116), a layman (a lawyer) writes: “The German nation has sunk as deeply as in the period after the Thirty Years’ War. But let us bear in mind that at that time the life of faith in our Evangelical Church showed its richest development. At that time our choicest hymns were written, hymns that have been since our childhood the inalienable treasures of our soul. Let us hope that just in the storms and trials of the new era our Church will prove itself to be a great power of life.” That would take place and the Church would today, too, by faith and prayer make the political distress disappear as it did after the Thirty Years’ War i the conditions in the Church were now as they were then. At that time the teachers of the nation, practically without exception, clung to the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word and clung to the Christian doctrine as taken from Scripture. Out of this faith the God-endowed singers of the Lutheran Church sang those beautiful hymns which still refresh our hearts today. Today, unfortunately, the situation is different. The public teachers of the Church with hardly any exception deny the infallible divine authority of Scripture and reject as repristination theology the Christian doctrine which formed the theme of those glorious hymns. This is done, also in this very number of the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, by a theologian who displays his great ignorance of the facts by speaking of an “irreparable fall of the old-fashioned dogma of inspiration” and who with a corresponding lack of the sense of truth points to a “Lutheran Judaism,” “where they believe their task already completed if they mechanically, externally, adopt the authority of Scripture as well as of the Confessions.” We theologians are, as experience teaches, very hard to convert when once we have thoroughly gone off the right track, when, for example, we no longer know whether we should teach out of Holy Scripture or out of our own Ego. For that reason a turn for the better in Germany will have to come also at this time, as it did in the last century, principally from “lay circles,” perhaps under the leadership of pastors who were not up till now in the public eye.

What has been said about the doctrinal position of the Missouri Synod applies also to the other synods in church fellowship with it. This is evident especially in the large dogmatical work by Adolf Hoenecke (d. 1908).230 Hoenecke, like Walther, arrives at the conclusion that the doctrine which the Lutheran Church confesses in its Symbols is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. And this doctrine he both presents from Scripture and defends victoriously in keen polemics against the old, the later, and the most recent errorists. In the elaborate and detailed Prolegomena the author also analyzes the modern experience theology. He proves that this experience theology, which on principle will not draw and determine the doctrine from Scripture but from the heart of the theologian, is both unscriptural and self-contradictory.231 We call special attention to a few main points in Hoenecke’s dogmatics which show the character of the author as a dogmatician. Hoenecke identifies Scripture and God’s Word without equivocation, and because Scripture and God’s Word are interchangeable terms, Scripture is to him also the only source and norm of theology. (I, 329 ff.) Scripture, and not a systematic construction, determines the content of dogmatics. Every other method leads astray, as, for example, the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination or the synergistic Lutheran doctrine of election and conversion. (I, 259 ff.) Hoenecke describes the synthetic and the analytic method, mentions also Coccejus’ federal, or covenant, method and the Bible-history method, which makes the Bible history the basis of the dogmatic material. None is to be rejected outright. “But the method used by moderns (Frank, etc.), who develop doctrine from the Christian consciousness, etc., is to be rejected.” “Dogmatics is solely the systematic, that is, the well-ordered presentation of the theological knowledge drawn from God’s Word in faith. It is therefore continually engaged in bringing its reasons and proofs from God’s Word. The Word of God is not only its source (principium cognoscendi, norma causativa), but also its standard, according to which it is continually gauged.” (I, 325 ff.) Of the Symbols, Hoenecke says: “Our [Lutheran] Church has deposited its knowledge derived from God’s Word in its Symbols, and hence a Lutheran dogmatics must meet the standard of the Symbols. But that does not set up a second standard; for the Symbols themselves have their criterion in Scripture; they are therefore themselves a standardized standard (norma normata)” Hoenecke also comes to the defense of the old Protestant dogmaticians: “The old dogmatics is theocentric, recent conservative dogmatics is anthropocentric” (I, 315). For the much-maligned Calov, Hoenecke pleads in these words: “In the opinion of the moderns he is a man who, like a watchdog, stands constantly before his master’s house and snappishly barks at all who try to break off anything, even what is growing along the fence. Such a man, of course, is not to the liking of such theologians as are ready to sacrifice almost everything in the doctrine, even the fundamentals. In Calov’s day, just as in ours, men began, with right-sounding phrases, softly and quietly to break off a little from what is on the peripher; then he could not, as a faithful watchman, keep silence, and he must therefore suffer much maligning today.”

We find no doctrinal difference between Walther and Hoenecke. And in this we see another evidence for the unifying power of God’s Word. As the fathers of the Missouri Synod differed from one another in character, so also Walther and Hoenecke were men of pronounced and divergent characters. They also came from different church circles. But they were one in faith and doctrine, as is evident in Hoenecke’s characterization of Walther as a theologian. He says of Walther (I, 320 ff.): “Carl F. W. Walther was a Scripture theologian. What the Ritschlian Kattenbusch (Von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl, p. 3) presents as a weakness of Walther, namely, that he issued the slogan for dogmatics: Only loci! since it is the characteristic of revelation that we know only disconnected pieces of God’s mysteries, that redounds to the credit of Walther. He is thereby aligning himself with the genuinely Lutheran theologians, while the so-called ‘confessional’ theologians across the water, since they actually attempt to construct systems, are under the influence of Schleiermacher, as Kattenbusch also tells them. According to Walther, it is not the task of the theologian to fabricate systems, to harmonize seemingly contradictory doctrines. He holds with Luther: ‘If harmonizing were in order, we could not retain one single article of faith.’ Nor did he regard it to be the task of the theologian to reconcile Scripture with science, faith with knowledge, even though the moderns strive to do this. When that is attempted, Scripture and faith must suffer. — In spite of his great respect for genuine science (Lehre und Wehre, Vol.21, Preface), he looks upon ‘scientific’ theology as something foreign. Science should serve merely as the maid of theology; if it arrogates more to itself, it should be cast out. Even the thought of bolstering the Scriptural theology by scientific proofs spoils theology. — For Walther the only principle of knowledge in theology is Scripture. Whatever does not spring from Scripture does not belong to theology. He writes: ‘We therefore agree with Johann Gerhard: the only principle of theology is the Word of God; therefore whatever is not revealed in God’s Word is not theological.’ He therefore rejected absolutely all theologizing on the basis of enlightened reason. (Lehre und Wehre 21, 225 ff.) ‘All such apologetics we detest with all our heart, for it presupposes that there is something still more certain than God’s Word, from which more certain principle the mysterious content of revelation can be derived’ (Lehre und Wehre 34, 326).— While modern confessional theologians across the sea define theology as the ‘churchly science of Christianity’ (thus Luthardt, Kompendium, p. 2) and speak of its ‘close relation to philosophy’ (Oettingen, Dogm. I, 411), Walther defines it with Chemnitz and the other old theologians as ‘habitus practicu,’ a view which Oettingen regards as primitive (loc. cit., p. 397). He says: ‘Whatever is the aim of the ministerial office is also the aim of theology. This aim is the true faith, the knowledge of the truth unto godliness, and, finally, eternal life.’ (Lehre und Wehre, 14, 73.) — A man becomes a theologian, according to Walther, only through the Holy Ghost, from the Word of God. Only he is a genuine theologian who has been born again of the Spirit by means of the Word. In his edition of Baier (p. 69) he quotes, in support thereof, Luther’s word: ‘A doctor of the Holy Scriptures no one can make for you but alone the Holy Ghost from heaven, as Christ says John 6:45.’ The Word makes the theologian, and in turn the theologian is occupied with the Word. — To Walther, Scripture was God’s Word and nothing else. He would permit no man to tamper with the old orthodox doctrine of inspiration. Rohnert praises him for this, that in the last decades he was perhaps the most eminent modern exponent of the doctrine of inspiration as taught by the old dogmaticians (Dogm., p. 105). Walther clung firmly to the inspiration of Scripture because he saw clearly that if one here yielded in the least, he was surrendering the principle that Scripture alone is the source and norm of theology. — Walther does not recognize ‘open questions,’ as the Iowa Synod understood the term. The Confessions do not make new dogmas; they merely exhibit them as doctrines of Scripture. Scripture is the deciding factor. Therefore the doctrine of the Bible is the doctrine of the Church even though it is not treated in the Symbols. (Lehre und Wehre 14, 133 ff.) Still, Walther esteemed the Confessions highly. He constantly quotes them as well as statements of the orthodox Lutheran teachers. Nevertheless, his theology is not a repristination theology in the evil sense, for Walther neither the old dogmaticians nor the Symbols, but Scriptures decide the issues. — As a Scripture theologian he did not unduly emphasize certain doctrines, though conditions demanded that at times certain doctrines be given special attention: the doctrine of the Church and the ministry over against the Buffalo Synod, the doctrine of election and conversion over against the Ohio and Iowa Synod, the doctrine of justification and reconciliation over against the Erlangen theology and the sects of this country.”

Though the controversy on the doctrine of the Church and the ministry was virtually ended when Hoenecke landed in the United States, he still bears witness to the Christian truth over against the errors that had arisen on the right hand and on the left. He teaches (Dogmatik IV, 146 ff.): The Church in the proper sense of the word consists only of the believing Christians, and only they are originally invested with all spiritual gifts and privileges. Hence they are also the persons who by the call “confer” (uebetgeben) the public office of the ministry on qualified persons. In regard to the question whether the public office of preaching is of divine or human ordinance, he emphatically teaches the divine institution of it. (IV, 175 ff.) He opposes, on the one hand, Grabau, Loehe, Kliefoth, Muenchmeyer, and others, who in a Romanizing manner made of the public office a means of grace in addition to Word and Sacraments, and, on the other hand, he opposes Hase, Koestlin, Hoefling, Luthardt, and others, who deny that the public ministry is divinely instituted in the sense that there is an express divine command for it and who claim that the office in concreto grows out of the Christian congregation by an inner necessity without an express divine command.

The charge has been advanced not only in America but also in Europe that in the doctrine of conversion and election Hoenecke, resp., the Wisconsin Synod and other synods in the Synodical Conference, “readily swallowed the bitter Missouri-Calvinistic pill.” 232 In plain language the accusation means these men sided with the Missouri Synod without a personal conviction, yes, contrary to their personal conviction. What about the allegation that Wisconsin swallowed this “bitter Missouri-Calvinistic pill”? From certain quarters in the Iowa Synod and about eight years later from the Ohio Synod the charge was raised that Missouri had fallen into a “fundamental error,” namely, into “Calvinism.” Well, what had happened? In dealing with the so-called crux theologorum: “Why one is hardened, blinded, and another, in the same guilt, is converted again?” the Missouri Synod summarized its position in three statements: (1) We know very definitely from Scripture the cause of conversion: it is God’s gracious operation alone; (2) we also know from Scripture very definitely the cause of non-conversion: it is solely man’s resistance against the operation of the Holy Ghost (sola hominis culpa); (3) but since the grace of God is both universal and efficacious, and all men are involved in the same total corruption, it remains a mystery for our human comprehension in this life why only some are converted and not all. This question was discussed in the Apostolic Church (Romans 9–11), in the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian controversies of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries,233 and particularly at the time of the Reformation, e. g., in the pointed question why Saul was rejected and David accepted, why Peter returns and Judas is lost.234 We await the solution of this mystery in eternal life. Every attempt at solving it in this life brings us into conflict with Scripture. The mystery would be solved quickly if we dared, with Erasmus and the later Melanchthon, to assume something in man (aliquid in nomine) as a cause or the explanation of the conversion of man, or if we were permitted to teach in the Christian Church that conversion depends not alone on God’s grace, but also on the conduct of man (facultas se applicandi ad gratiam). But this solution contradicts all those Scripture passages which so clearly ascribe the generation of faith to the gracious and omnipotent working of God and not only deny to man any inclination toward the Gospel, but ascribe to him enmity against the Gospel. Again, the mystery would be completely solved if we were permitted to substitute, with Calvin, as the cause of non-conversion for the gratia universalis the gratia particularis. But also this solution is prohibited, because it brings us into conflict with all those Scripture passages which so clearly and powerfully teach the gratia universalis, seria, et efficax, and expressly extend the operation of the Holy Ghost, efficacious for conversion, also to those men who are not converted and saved. Therefore, in view of the equal grace of God and in view of the equal total depravity of man, we must desist from attempting to find an answer to the question: Cur alii, alii non? which is satisfactory to reason. Thus Luther, thus Chemnitz, thus very outspokenly also the Formula of Concord, which, after stating the fact: “One is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again,” immediately adds that here we face a “question” the answer to which is impossible in this life, since the revelation of Scripture does not extend beyond Hos. 13:9: “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thine help.” And the Formula very definitely sets forth that, in comparing the saved with the lost, we must teach that Scripture ascribes an equal guilt and an equally wicked conduct to both.

Contrariwise, the Ohio and Iowa Synods claimed that it is not true that the Lutheran Church leaves the question unanswered why death and resistance in the case of one is removed, in the case of another not. Their answer was that the fact “that of two men who hear the Gospel, resistance and death in the case of one is removed, in the case of the other not — has its reason in the will of man; it has this reason that the one persistently, stubbornly, and willfully resists God’s grace, while the other permits his natural resistance to be overcome by the Holy Ghost. The reason lies in the free self-decision of man.” 235 Because the Missouri Synod clung to the universal grace as well as to the sola gratia, the fable of the Missourian “Calvinism” has been broadcast, and the Allgemeine Ev.-Luth. Kirchenzeitung speaks of the “bitter Missouri-Calvinistic pill” which the synods of Wisconsin and Minnesota supposedly have swallowed.

The report of their synodical convention of 1882,236 however, shows with what a clear knowledge of the doctrine of Holy Scripture, of Luther, and of the Lutheran Confessions these synods discussed the relevant doctrines. The position of both synods on this doctrine of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions is plainly seen from the following conclusive statements: “Man can contribute not the least bit to his conversion, neither by his actions nor by his attitude; and the fact that some are converted, while others remain obdurate is to be explained neither by assuming a difference in men nor by denying the universal gracious will of God.” “When this double question is asked: Whence is it that the one is converted and the other not? one cannot answer: ‘That is of God,’ or ‘That is of man.’ But that a man is converted is the result of the powerful operation of God’s grace in the Gospel, which has taken effect on him; that another is not converted is the result of the mighty power and operation of his wicked heart, which has resisted the grace of God.” In his dogmatics (I, 260) Hoenecke classifies all who insert into the ordo salutis a “dissimilar human conduct” as “fabricators of systems,” i. e., as such as in the interest of a rational system pretend to be wise beyond Scripture. The “dissimilar conduct” theory was thrown upon the theological market in order to give a rational answer to the fact: “One is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again.” In doing this, the Scripture passages that state the equal total depravity of all men are canceled. “Where they sought to proceed in a strictly systematic manner, the result has been the gravest departure from Scripture. Such a system, no matter what kind it is, always demands an answer to the question why many are called but few are saved. It is at this point that the fabricating of a system leads astray: either to the predestinarian doctrine of Calvinism or to the synergistic doctrine of election and conversion.”

The two representatives of the “strictly confessional trend” in the Lutheran Church of America were, in spite of the difference in their character, the course of their life, and the sphere of activity, united and remained united to their death in the bond of complete agreement in doctrine. Both were “repristination theologians” in the right, God-pleasing sense of the word and serve as a concrete example of such words of Luther as this: “The Word and the doctrine must effect the Christian fellowship and unity; when these are alike and one, the rest will follow of itself.” Again: “Let one church follow the other [in external matters] of its own will, or let each one keep its own customs; if only the unity of the Spirit in the bond of faith and the Word is preserved, the difference and diversity in mundane and visible matters will do no harm.” Finally: “None of that peace and unity for me by which one loses God’s Word; for then eternal life and everything else would already be lost. Here I dare not yield or concede anything to please you or any man, but all things must yield to the Word, be they friend or foe. For it is not given for the sake of external or political unity and peace, but for the sake of eternal life.” 237

It has been asked what influence the “strictly confessional trend” of the Lutheran Church in America has exerted on others, first on the older branches of the Lutheran Church in America, which had hardly more than the name Lutheran, and then on the Church of Germany and other lands. And in connection with this question it has also been asked whether a “repristination theology,” holding in all points to Scripture as God’s infallible Word (Verbal Inspiration) and consequently also to the Confessions of the Lutheran Church, could endure here and elsewhere.

First, the influence on other Lutheran church bodies must be appraised neither too low nor too high. A strong influence has indeed been exerted on the older Lutheran church bodies in America, even though the fathers of the Missouri Synod did practically their entire work by means of the German tongue. The most eminent theologian of the English-speaking Lutheran Church in America, Charles Porterfield Krauth (d. 1883), has repeatedly and in various ways expressed the opinion that the “Missourians” must be regarded as the benefactors of the Lutheran Church in America. Krauth felt constrained in his conscience to renounce his former lax, unionistic position. Among other things he wrote in 1865: “Our Church can never have genuine internal harmony except in the confession of these articles (the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession), of all of them together, without reservation and equivocation. This is our deep conviction, and we herewith solemnly retract before God and His Church, as we have already earnestly and repeatedly done in an indirect manner, whatever we have written or uttered in conflict with this our present conviction. We are not ashamed to do this. We thank God who has led us to understand the truth.” 238 And in the preface to his most important book he states: “The positions taken in this book are largely counter, in some respects, to the prevailing theology of our time and our land. No man can be more fixed in his prejudice against the views here defended than the author himself once was; no man can be more decided in his opinion that those views are false than the author is now decided in his faith that they are the truth. They have been formed in the face of all the influences of education and of bitter hatred or of contemptuous disregard on the part of nearly all who were most intimately associated with him in the period of struggle.” 239 But because of unyielding resistance Krauth’s theological position did not become dominant in his own circles.

The next important English Lutheran dogmatician is Henry E. Jacobs. His A Summary of Christian Faith (1905) is written in expert catechetical form. And the endeavor to arrive at the Scriptural Lutheran position is plainly evident from the copious quotations from Luther, the Confessions, and the dogmaticians. But he inserted the “difference in man’s attitude” into the order of salvation as the answer to the question: Cur non omnes? and thereby definitely turned into the synergistic channel. He writes: “The differences in results in the call do not depend upon differences in God’s will or upon the call having an irresistible efficacy attached to it in one case and having no efficacy attached to it in the other. The efficacy of the Word and call is constant; the difference in results is determined by a difference in man’s attitude towards the call.” 240 The last statement is the doctrine of the later Melanchthon. And when Dr. Schmauck, the president of the General Council, sought to eliminate this synergism,241 he was censured and reprimanded by members of his own church body.242 But where the conversion and salvation of man is based, in the final analysis, on man’s conduct, self-decision, self-assertion, and not solely on God’s grace, there the nature of the Christian religion in its radical difference from all man-made religions, is surrendered in principle. Where this doctrine actually reigns, there the conflict with Rome and the struggle against the work-righteousness of the sects and the lodges are unwarranted and futile. Luther knew well what he was saying when he said to Erasmus: “Jugulum meum petisti!” Jacobs has also surrendered the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Scripture. On the one hand, he calls Scripture the “inerrant record” of divine revelation; on the other hand, he nevertheless speaks of the “discrepancies” of the holy writers. He says, for example: “But there is a true sense in which we may say not only that ‘the Bible is,’ but ‘that the Bible contains, the Word of God.’ This occurs when each part, even the most insignificant and seemingly trifling, even the discrepancies between various human inspired writers, and all that pertains to the limitations of their nature and environment and age and language, are regarded as bearing on the one great end and one great theme of revelation and its clear and inerrant record.”243 Questions which have nothing to do with the inspiration of Scripture, e. g., the historical question whether the Hebrew vowel points were found in the original text (Gerhard) or not (Luther), Jacobs mingles into the doctrine of inspiration.244 Jacobs gives expression to his rejection of the inspiration of Scripture in a very decided way. While Christ says of the whole Scripture and every single statement of Scripture: “The Scripture cannot be broken,” and the Apostle Paul says without distinction of the entire Scripture: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” and Peter assures us that the word of the Prophets of the Old Testament and of the Apostles of the New Testament are equally the words of the Holy Ghost, Jacobs assumes that there are degrees of inspiration in the various parts of the Old and the New Testament.245 Jacobs employs nearly all the arguments which modern theology uses in its attack on the inspiration of Scripture. He appeals, for example, to the fact that the Augsburg Confession contains no article on inspiration and that the Formula of Concord formulates no definition either of revelation or inspiration. In order to discredit Verbal Inspiration, he insinuates that its advocates hold the mechanical conception of the inspiration theory.246

While Krauth advocated the strictly confessional principle represented by the Missourians 247 and denounced every church union without doctrinal unity as displeasing to God,248 the General Council united with the General Synod, the United Synod of the South, and other Lutheran Synods to form the United Lutheran Church of America without regard for the principles of Krauth. We cannot escape the conviction that neither Walther’s nor Krauth’s influence had gained the ascendancy.249

It is difficult to evaluate the influence of the “strictly confessional trend” of the Lutheran Church in America on world Lutheranism. Walther attempted to maintain fairly close contacts with European Lutherans and no doubt exerted a wholesome influence.250 But gradually the breach between us and European theologians widened.251 Instead of reading our literature, they seemed to believe what our American opponents had to say about our “strictly confessional trend,” viz., our alleged Calvinism, our idolizing of the dogmaticians, and our dishonoring of the dogmaticians, our unity and our mutual strife, the congregations’ democratic enslaving of the pastors.252 This need not surprise us, for we are theologically divided by a gulf so wide and deep that it cannot be bridged. We regard Holy Scripture as God’s infallible Word and therefore as the only source and norm of theology, while the modern theologians regard the “identification” of Scripture and “Word of God” as an outmoded position that is taken today only in “lay circles” and among theological “laggards.” An agreement cannot be reached by theologians who represent such antipodal positions. Still, amid the terrific convulsions that today are shaking the whole world, God’s grace can bring about a change also in this respect.

Will the “strictly confessional trend” of the Lutheran Church as represented here in the United States by the Synodical Conference be able to survive here and in other countries? Our answer may be submitted in the following points:

1. It is not left to our discretion whether we want to abide by the doctrine of the Lutheran Church, as it is declared in its Confession, or whether we should choose a different doctrine. The doctrine of the Lutheran Church agrees perfectly with the doctrine of Christ as we have it in the Word of His Apostles and Prophets (John 8:31; 17:20; Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Cor. 13:3), and no other doctrine is permissible in the Christian Church to the Last Day. In so far as a man does not consent to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is proud, knowing nothing, since no man knows anything of God and divine matters beyond God’s Word. (1 Tim. 6:3 ff.) Orthodoxy is the divinely intended form of the Christian Church on earth. Of course, whoever has not come to see that the Lutheran doctrine, as presented in the Confessions of that Church, is the doctrine of Scripture, cannot contend for this doctrine. But this lack of knowledge does not change the fact that the Lutheran Church of the Reformation is the Church of the pure, that is, the Scriptural, doctrine, as the Scripture proof furnished by the Confessions themselves shows. The Lutheran Church in its original, unchangeable form of doctrine should therefore not act timidly among men, as though it had to apologize for still existing, but it should by God’s grace step before the Church and the world with that confidence which the knowledge of the divine truth flowing from the continuance in the Word of the Apostles and Prophets inspires.

2. The history of the Church shows that by God’s grace and power a Church which continues in the immutable Word of the Prophets and Apostles has vitality. The church at Jerusalem continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine, and the Lord added daily such as were saved (Acts 2:42-47; 4:4; 5:14; 11:21; 14:1). Also the Church of the Reformation held its ground against the whole world by taking the position characterized in the axiom: “The Word they still shall let remain.” And as to the Lutheran Church in America, a speedy extinction had been prophesied for its “strictly confessional trend” by both the Reformed sects and the liberal “American Lutheranism.” The fathers of the Missouri Synod were given the advice from all sides to cast aside the “Symbol theology” and instead to adopt the fashionable “revival method,” in case they wished to keep their Church alive. Our fathers refused to be confused by such talk. They fought every form of the man-made movement of holding revivals, and in a quiet and clear manner, publicly and privately, in the home, the school, the church, and the higher institutions of learning, kept on teaching the pure divine truth, as it is revealed in God’s infallible Word and confessed in the Symbols of the Lutheran Church. And God has blessed the “repristination theology” of our fathers with success also in this country, in spite of vehement opposition. But whether there be success or not, God has commanded His Church to preach His Word without subtraction or addition. Farther than that the responsibility of the Church does not go. The success rests in God’s hands. In this conviction the entire Synodical Conference is by God’s grace united and active as one Church. To this end God, of course, must give and preserve teachers who are not only scholarly but have also been trained in the school of the Holy Ghost, so that they know by their own experience how absolutely necessary it is for the Church steadfastly to cling to the sola gratia and the sola Scriptura. Modern theology has unfortunately given up both these truths.

3. Finally, we must keep in mind that in its antithesis to Lutheran theology modern theology takes virtually the same position as Reformed theology. The fact is that modern theology is walking not in Lutheran, but in Reformed paths. The method of Schleiermacher, which would take the Christian doctrine not from Holy Scripture, but from the pious self-consciousness of the Christian “experience,” is the method of Zwingli and Calvin, in so far as both taught an immediate operation of the Holy Spirit which is not bound to the written Word. The fact that Zwingli and Calvin did not consistently apply their unscriptural theological principle finds its explanation in part in the powerful influence of Luther, and in part in this, that in dealing with men they were forced back to the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace in contradiction to their real theological principle of an immediate operation of the Holy Ghost. We have no quarrel with the Reformed theology in regard to the external arrangement of the Christian doctrines within the corpus doctrinae. The fact is that the Reformed theologians use both the synthetic and the analytic method.253 Even according to the federal, or covenant, method the Christian doctrine could be presented exactly according to Scripture. What we object to in the Reformed theology is this, that in all doctrines in which it differs from the Lutheran Church and on which it has constituted itself as the Reformed Church alongside the Lutheran Church, it denies the Scriptural principle and lets rationalistic axioms rule. This has already been treated in the chapter “The Cause of the Divisions Within Visible Christendom.”