_21_The Attainment of Theological Aptitude

Luther writes in the preface to the first part of his German books in 1539 (St. L. XIV:434 ff.): “Let me show you a right method for studying theology, the one that I have used. If you adopt it, you will become so learned that if it were necessary, you yourself would be qualified to produce books just as good as those of the Fathers and the church councils. Even as I dare to be so bold in God as to pride myself, without arrogance or lying, as not being greatly behind some of the Fathers in the matter of making books; as to my life, I am far from being their equal.254 This method is the one which the pious king David teaches in the 119th Psalm and which, no doubt, was practiced by all the Patriarchs and Prophets. In the 119th Psalm you will find three rules, which are abundantly expounded throughout the entire Psalm. They are called: Oratio, Meditatio, Tentatio.” Matthias Hafenreffer, professor of theology and chancellor of the university of Tuebingen (d. 1619), places this axiom of Luther at the head of his dogmatics,255 at the same time expanding it on the basis of Scripture and applying it to conditions of his day. Among the theologians of the last century Rudelbach (d. 1862) had this to say in an address on Luther’s instruction as to the study of theology: “You are familiar with the great word of Luther: Oratio, meditatio, tentatio faciunt theologum. This word comprises our entire theological methodology. Here, just as is the case with every thought sealed by the Spirit of God, there is nothing to add, nothing to subtract.” 256 There can be no doubt that the distressing lack of true teachers would be quickly ended if Luther’s methodology were observed everywhere.

Luther explains the necessity of the oratio thus: “First, you should know that Holy Scripture is a book such as will make the wisdom of all other books appear as folly, since no book teaches anything concerning eternal life but this one alone. Therefore you should straightway despair of your own wit and intellect, for with them you will attain nothing, but by such arrogance you will cast yourself and others with you from heaven into the abyss of hell, as happened to Lucifer. But enter into thy closet and kneel down and implore God with all humility and earnestness that by His dear Son He would grant you His Holy Ghost, who will enlighten you, guide you, and give you understanding. As you observe that David in the 119th Psalm continually prays: Teach me, O Lord, make me to understand, guide me, show me! and many more such words, though he knew well the text of Moses and of many more such books, also daily heard and read them; still he wants to have the true Master of the Scripture at his side in order that he may not plunge into them with his reason and become master himself. For that is what turns men into unruly fanatics who imagine that Scripture is subject to them and easily attained by their reason, as though it were the fables of Marcolfus or Aesop, for which they need no Holy Ghost nor prayer.” What Luther here says of the need of prayer rests on the conviction wrought by the Holy Ghost that there is no other book in the world like Holy Scripture. It is God’s own majestic Word. For that reason it is the only book which teaches eternal life, since all the world is held captive in the opinio legis. When other books do teach of eternal life, namely, teach that salvation is obtained without the works of the Law, by faith in Christ’s satisfactio vicaria, this is derived from Scripture. And since Scripture is the very Word of God, it is proper for the theologian that as often as he opens Scripture, he put no faith whatever in his wit or intellect and ask from God His Holy Spirit, who alone teaches one to understand God’s Word and creates that spirit which subjects itself to the Scriptures. Without this operation of the Holy Spirit man will arrogantly deem himself superior to Scripture, will make Scripture not the object of his faith, but of his criticism, an arrogance that will finally lead himself and others into perdition and will cause factions and divisions in the Church. And this is true of modern theology, because it will not accept Scripture as the Word of God, but places itself above Scripture. The Ego of the theologian becomes the dominating factor, and since there is many an Ego, the result is not unity in the Christian doctrine, but hopeless dissension and factionalism.

Of the meditatio Luther says: “Secondly, you should meditate, that is, not in the heart alone, but also externally, work on and ply the oral speech and the lettered words in the Book, read them and re-read them again and again, noting carefully and reflecting upon what the Holy Ghost means by these words. And have a care that you do not tire of it or think it enough if you have read, heard, said it once or twice and now profoundly understand it all. For in that manner a person will never become much of a theologian. He will be like worm-eaten fruit that drops from the tree before it is half ripe. Therefore you see in this Psalm how David over and over glories in the fact that he will speak, compose, declare, sing, hear, read, day and night and evermore; however, nothing but the Word and precepts of God alone. For God will not give you His Holy Spirit except through the external Word; be guided by that. For He has not without purpose commanded to put things down in writing, to preach, read, hear, sing, recite, etc.” In this exposition of the meditatio Luther tells what constitutes the study of theology, namely, not the meditation of what the theologizing Ego speculates about God and divine things, but the reflection upon what the Holy Ghost means and teaches in “the lettered words in the Book,” in the letters of Scripture, which is not the word of man, but the Word of the Holy Ghost. Modern theology, however, holds that Luther’s method demands a theology which is unworthy of theology and leads to intellectualism which is detrimental to piety. But the only method is the continual occupation with the “lettered words in the Book.” Without this method a person will “never become much of a theologian.” Luther wants no “rustication of the pastor,” as Walther used to say, but continued diligent study on his part.

Luther’s explanation of the tentatio reads thus: “Thirdly, there is tentatio, affliction. This is the touchstone; this teaches you not merely to know and understand, but also to experience how right, how true, how sweet, how lovely, how mighty, how consoling, God’s Word is, wisdom above all wisdom. That is why you observe how David in the 119th Psalm so often complains about all sorts of enemies, about nefarious princes and tyrants, about false prophets and factions, whom he must endure because he meditates, that is, as stated, is occupied with, God’s Word in every way. For as soon as the Word of God blooms forth through you, the devil will visit you, make a real doctor of you, and by his affliction will teach you to seek and love God’s Word. For I myself — if I may refer to my humble example (dass ich Maeusedreck auch mich mit unter den Pfeffer menge) — owe very much to my Papists, because through the raging of the devil they have so buffeted, distressed, and terrified me that they have made me a fairly good theologian, which I would not have become without them. And what they have, in turn, gained from me, they are heartily welcome to that honor, victory, and triumph, for they were bound to have it so.” Luther’s entire theology grew out of the tentatio, tentatio from within and from without. First came the tentatio from within. After years of uncertainty and terrors of conscience under the Roman doctrine of works God led him to an understanding of the Gospel of the free grace of God in Christ. Thus he tasted in his own heart and conscience “how right, how true, how sweet, how lovely, how mighty, how consoling, God’s Word is, Wisdom above all wisdom.” Then came the tentatio from without. When Luther taught the Word of God, the Papacy, yes, most all the world, got in his way and declared his eternal life as well as his temporal life forfeited. In this affliction he learned “to seek and to love God’s Word,” and this with such success that he could exclaim: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise.” Thus, by way of affliction, Luther became “a fairly good theologian.” And let us not be deceived! Also in our day the theological aptitude is attained in no other way than this, that in the distress coming from within and without we are driven into the Word of Scripture and cling to it as the only immovable divine force in the universe. The entire recent scientific theology has a different spirit. It does not employ God’s Gospel to bring peace to consciences stricken by God’s Law; it does not suppress the wisdom of the world with God’s Word, “the Wisdom above all wisdom.” It sees its task in satisfying the “craving of the intellect” and in harmonizing the Christian doctrine with the “scientific world view.”

Finally, Luther describes how continuance in the Word of Scripture creates those attitudes which are essential for the theologian, namely, grateful delight in the written Word, serene confidence in his ability to teach young and old in all stations of life, lasting and increasing humility to check the pernicious, ever-menacing pride which causes so much havoc in man’s own soul and among others. Luther closes thus: “Behold, here you have David’s rule. If you now will study well according to this example, you will also sing and glory with him, ‘The Law of Thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver,’ Ps. 119:72; again (vv. 98-100): ‘Thou through Thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies; for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers; for Thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Thy precepts.’ And you will experience how flat and stale the books of the Fathers will taste to you; and not only will you despise the books of the opponents, but your own writings and teachings will please you the longer, the less. When you have arrived at this point, then you can confidently hope that you have made a beginning of becoming a real theologian, who can teach not only the young and immature Christians, but also the more mature, even the perfect Christians; for Christ’s Church contains all sorts of Christians, young, old, weak, sick, sound, strong, alert, lazy, foolish, wise, etc. But if you feel and think that you know it all and are tickled with your own booklets, your teaching and writing, as if you had produced something very precious and had preached admirably, and it pleases you much to be praised before others, yes, even expect such praise, so that you do not become depressed and lose interest: if you have that sort of a pelt, my friend, then take hold of your ears; and if you grab right, you will find a fine pair of large, long, shaggy ass’s ears; then risk the full cost and decorate yourself with golden bells, so that, wherever you walk, people can hear you, point you out, and say: ‘Look, lookl There goes that wonderful creature that can write such fine books and deliver such eloquent sermons.’ Then you are happy, and superhappy in heaven; ay, where the fire of hell is prepared for the devil and his angels! To sum up, let us seek honor and be elated where it is in place. In this Book the glory belongs entirely to God, and it says: ‘Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam. Cui est gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen!’ “ We advise all theologians and those who would become such to read Luther’s theological methodology repeatedly, in order to follow it by God’s grace, at all times.

1 A phrase employed by Nitzsch-Stephan, Lehrbuch der ev. Dogmatik, 3d ed., 1912, p. 13.

2 Luther’s term for Scripture, St. L. IX: 1071.

3 Sermons on Genesis, St. L. III:21.

4 Exeg. opp. Lat. Ed. Erl. IV, 328. St. L. I:1289 f.

5 Opp. v. a. VII, 166. St. L. XVIII: 1730.

6 Nitzsch-Stephan, Dogmatik, pp. 13, IX.

7 Exposition of the Last Words of David, 2 Sam. 23:3. St. L. III:1890. Erl. 37, 12.

8 Cicero derives religio from relegere or religere. De Nat. Deorum 2:28: “Men who make all those things that pertain to the worship of the gods the object of diligent study and close scrutiny are called religious because of this close study (relegendo), just as the elegant are called thus because of their choosing (eligendo), the diligent because of their giving close attention (diligendo), the intelligent because of their reflecting (intelligendo).” The Christian author Lactantius, on the other hand, derives religio from religare, in the sense of to bind, place under obligation to Cod. Inst. Div. 4:28: “By this bond of piety we are so obligated and bound [obstricti et religati] to God that therefrom religion itself received its name and not, as Cicero would have it, from relegere.” Augustine wavers between religere and religare. (Compare De Civ. Dei 10, 4 with De Vera Relig. c. 55.) Most of the older Lutheran theologians prefer the derivation from religare: Quenstedt, Syst., 1715, I. 28; Hollaz, Examen Proleg. II, qu. 2. Calov has a detailed account of the various derivations, Isag. I, 275 sqq. (See Baier-Walther, I, 14.) Modern theologians accept one or the other of the explanations mentioned or give other explanations; consult the larger encyclopedias. Voigt, Fundamentaldogmatik, pp. 1–30, discusses the question at great length.

9 H. Ebeling cites the axiom: “The etymology of a word usually sheds some light on its meaning but rarely covers the meaning it has acquired in common usage.” He adds: “Only in rare cases can the original meaning of a word be absolutely determined, and the historical development of the meaning and of the usage is something different from the etymology and the original meaning.” (Woerterbuch zum N. T. III, Introd.) Luther says on this point: ‘It is one thing to speak grammatically, another, to talk Latin. Therefore one must consider not so much the grammatical and regular language as the common usage…. In Latin many words have through usage acquired a meaning foreign to the grammatical laws.” (Opp. Exeg. Lat. VIII, 69.)

10 This definition of the pagan religion has always been quite generally accepted. Karl Stange, for instance, says: “The characteristic feature of the heathen religion is that it sees no other way to reconcile God and man than through human efforts and undertakings.” “The heathen religion instructs the sinner to remove the consciousness of sin by striving to make amends for his sin.” (Moderne Probleme, 1910, p. 183 f.) Luthardt: “It is the characteristic of heathenism to base the relation of God and man altogether on a quid pro quo arrangement, that is, to achieve salvation through works” (Glaubenslehre, 1898, p. 467). Thus also Ihmels (see Aus der Kirche, p. 52). And the Lutheran Confessions declare: “Works become conspicuous before men. Human reason naturally admires these, and because it sees only works, and does not understand or consider faith, it dreams accordingly that these works merit remission of sins and justify. This opinion of the Law inheres by nature in men’s minds; neither can it be expelled, unless we are divinely taught. Haec opinio legis inhaeret naturaliter in animis hominum.” (_Apology, _Trigl., 197, 144.)

11 — you become severed from Chirst, have no communion with Him. Cp. Cremer sub . Luther: “Ihr habt Christum verloren, die ihr durch das Gesetz gerecht werden wollt.” You who imagine that you are justified through the Law. (R. V.: “would be justified.”)

12 The pagan, the Jewish, the Mohammedan, the Christian religion. Some Lutheran Catechisms, too, make this fourfold division.

13 This universality and exclusiveness of the Christian religion has already been prophesied in the Old Testament. Ps. 2:8: “I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.” Gen. 49:10; Ps. 72:8; etc.; Is. 49:6. Christ the “Light to the Gentiles and “My Salvation unto the end of the earth.”

14 Compare Luther’s comments on Is. 9.2 f., where he convincingly sets forth that all intellectual and moral endeavors of the heathen and unbelieving Jews leave men in darkness and despair. VI:106 ff. — The Lange-Schaff Commentary on Acts 26:18 says: “The purpose of Paul’s mission is stated in such a manner that it can be understood as referring only to Gentiles.” But Meyer’s Commentary is right when it points out that Paul himself declares that he was sent to the Jews and the Gentiles, v. 20, so that the phrase in v. 17: “Unto whom I now send thee” refers to “the people” (the Jews) and “the Gentiles.” — Meyer, however, is in error when he states that on the basis of the “turning from the power of Satan unto God” applies primarily to the Gentiles, since Paul in Eph. 2:3-4 expressly applies to the Jews what he says of the Gentiles in vv. 1 and 2.

15 Huttens Redivivus, 10th ed., p. 11.

16 Christian Dogmatics, Edinburgh 1898, p. 10.

17 Grundrisz, 3d ed., p. 10.

18 Eν. Dogmatik, 1912, p. 112.

19 Moritz von Engelhardt also states emphatically that there are only two religions in the world, two essentially different religions. (R. E., 2d ed., XVII, p. 773.)

20 Thus, e. g., Kirn, Grundrisz, 3d ed., p. 9.

21 Harless is right in putting into the domain of “dreams” the notion of Zwingli, Bucer, and others that an exception must be made in the case of certain individuals among the heathen. Luther against Zwingli’s beatification of the pagan heroes Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, etc. St. L. XX:1767. Certain heathen themselves have confessed that their situation is hopeless. See Luthardt, Apologetische Vortraege, I, 2, note 11.

22 F. Pieper, Das Wesen des Christentums, p. 5. [Max Mueller: wrong name.]

23 M. Heinze in R. E., 3d ed., XVI, 613 f.

24 Mansi, XX, 742.

25 Compare Luthardt, Dogmatik, 10th ed., p. 5 ff., in the chapter “Die Berechtigung der Theologie.” Harless had already expressed the same idea, Theol. Encyclopaedie, 1837, p. 27.

26 R. Seeberg, too, points out that Anselm and Abelard operate on the same rationalistic basis. Both give ratio a place beside faith. Dogmengeschichte II, 41 f.

27 here means God’s legislative and judicial righteousness. Cf. on the passage Stoeckhardt, Meyer, Philippi.

28 Stoeckhardt on our passage: “Hofmann takes death to mean the death penalty inflicted by the government. Such an interpretation is altogether foreign to the text.” Philippi refers to the heathen teaching on Hades and its punishments and concludes: “Accordingly in our passage should be interpreted as meaning the mors aeterna.”

29 Cf. Luther, St. L. I:230 ff., III:650 ff.

30 Luther discusses this matter at greater length in St. L. VII: 1704–1712.

31 John 8:31 f.: “If ye continue in My Word, then are ye My disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth.” — John 17:20: “Which shall believe on Me through their Word.” All who come to faith in Christ are brought to faith, now and to the Last Day, through the Word of the Apostles. See also Eph. 2:20: “Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.”

32 See on this Nitzsch-Stephan, Eν. Dogmatik, p. 270; Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, 10th ed., p. 12, note 1.

33 The point under discussion has been treated in recent textbooks on dogmatics and monographs under titles such as: “Romanismus und Protestantismus,” “Der Lutherische und der Reformierte Protestantismus,” “Fortbildung des Luthertums,” “Moderne Theologie des Alten Glaubens,” “Irenic Theology,” etc.

34 Tridentinum, Sess. VI, Can. 11, 12, 20: “If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost (Rom. 5:5) and is inherent in them; or even that grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema. — If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. — If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments; let him be anathema.” For a further discussion, see Vol. II, “The Papacy and the Doctrine of Justification.”

35 Apology: “Therefore, even though Popes, or some theologians, and monks in the Church have taught us to seek remission of sins, grace, and righteousness through our own works, and to invent new forms of worship, which have obscured the office of Christ, and have made out of Christ not a Propitiator and Justifier, but only a Legislator, nevertheless the knowledge of Christ has always remained with some godly persons” (Trigl. 225, 271).

36 Recent theologians: Gaussen, Kuyper, Bochl, Shedd, Hodge.

37 Statements characterizing the Lutheran and the Reformed Church in Luthardt, Dogmatik, 11th ed., p. 26 f.

38 See the chapters: “The Means of Grace in General” and “All Means of Grace Have the Same Purpose and the Same Effect,” in Vol. III.

39 Thus Zwingli, Fidei Ratio. Niemeyer, p. 24: “The Spirit needs no guide or vehicle, for He is Himself the power and the bearer by whom everything is borne, who needs not to be borne.” So also Calvin, Inst. IV, ch. 14, 17. “We get rid of that fiction by which the cause of justification and the power of the Holy Spirit are included in the elements as vessels and vehicles.” Geneva Catechism (Niemeyer, p. 161): “It does not inhere in the visible signs, so that we should have to seek salvation there.” Charles Hodge (Syst. Theol. II, 684): “Efficacious grace acts immediately.” Boehl, too, teaches that the Word is efficacious only in those who have already been regenerated, through the immediate operation of the Spirit. (Dogmatik, p. 447 f.)

40 Zwingli’s answer to Luther’s “That these words, etc.,” reprinted in the St. L. ed. of Luther’s Works, XX: 1131 f.: “I [Zwingli] am going to show you [Luther] that you have never grasped the vast and marvelous glory of the Gospel: and if you have once known it, you have forgotten it.”

41 Calvin, Inst. IV, ch. 17, 19: “The presence of Christ in the Supper must be such as neither divests Him of His just dimensions nor dissevers Him by differences of place, nor makes Him occupy a variety of places at the same time.” 29: “The essential properties of the body are to be confined by space, to have dimension and form.” Calvin adds: “Have done, then, with that foolish fiction which affixes the minds of men, as well as Christ, to bread.” In the same paragraph Calvin asserts that John 20:19 cannot mean that Christ with His body “penetrated through solid matter” — an opening had to be provided — and that Luke 24:31 does not say that Christ became invisible; it simply says that “their eyes were holden.”

42 So also Calvin, Inst., III, ch. 24, 17, 15: “However universal the promises of salvation may be, there is no discrepancy between them and the predestination of the reprobate, provided we attend to their effect. — Experience teaches that He does not will the repentance of those whom He externally calls, in such a manner as to affect all their hearts.”

43 Calvin argues against the universality of God’s gracious will on the basis of God’s omnipotence: ‘If they obstinately insist on its being said that God is merciful to all, I will oppose to them what is elsewhere asserted, that our God is in the heavens, where He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased, Ps. 115:3” (Inst. III, ch. 24, par. 16). Hodge: “It cannot be supposed that God intends what is never accomplished — that He adopts means for an end which is never to be attained. This cannot be affirmed of any rational being who has the wisdom and power to secure the execution of his purposes. Much less can it be said of Him whose power and wisdom are infinite. (Loc. cit.) — It should be noted here that in quoting Ps. 115:3 Calvin takes the liberty to change the wording. The words: “But our God is in the heavens; He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased” set forth the omnipotence of God in contrast to the impotence of the idols of the pagans, as set forth in the next verse: “Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.” Calvin’s insertion of the ubi: “Our God is in the heavens, ubi faciat quaecumque velit” (where He does whatsoever He pleases) changes the meaning completely. It makes the text say that God wills and does otherwise in heaven than on earth.

44 Schneckenburger shows in detail how in his pastoral practice the Calvinist finds himself operating with the Lutheran gratia universalis. (Vergleichende Darstellung d. luth. u. ref. Lehrbegriffs I, 260 ff. See Pieper, III, 201.)

45 The Apol. Conf. Remonstr. declares (p. 162) that the divine grace working towards conversion “cannot accomplish anything without the cooperation of man’s free will and therefore its success depends on the free will.”

46 This is presented in detail under “Conversion” in Vol. II and “Final Perseverance” in Vol. III.

47 “As long as man has any persuasion that he can do even the least thing toward his own salvation, he retains a confidence in himself, he does not humble himself before God, but proposes to himself some place, some time, or some work, whereby he may at length attain unto salvation” (Luther, St. L. XVIII:1715).

48 Apology: “As often as we speak of faith, we wish an object to be understood, namely, the promised mercy” (Trigl. 136, 55).

49 Theologie der Konkordienformel I, 135. In De Servo Arbitrio Luther mentions certain advocates of free will who, when dealing with God, forget their synergistic theories. He says (St. L. XVIII:1730): “When they are engaged in words and disputations, they are one thing, but another when they come to experience and practice…. When they approach God, either to pray or to do, they approach Him utterly forgetful of their own ‘free will’ and, despairing of themselves, cry unto Him for pure grace only.” See also Mead, Irenic Theology, p. 163.

50 Thieme in R. E., 3d ed., XXI, 120.

51 St. L. XX: 1094 ff. Erlangen 30, 363 ff. F. C., Trigl., 981 f.

52 The Formula of Concord, Trigl., 1071, 28-29; 837, 17-19 confesses the gratia universalis, and 788, 9-11; 1081, 57-64, the sola gratia, and forgoes all attempts to ease this crux theologorum. Likewise Luther, De Servo Arbitrio, St. L. XVIII: 1965 f.

53 Seeberg, Dogmengeschichte, I, 138. F. H. Foster in the Concise Dictionary by Jackson, Chambers and Foster: “The theoretical difference grew out of a personal one.”

54 See, for example, the German Agende of the Missouri Synod, p. 44 f.; 58 f. See also Walther, Pastorale, p. 389 f., Note 1. [Fritz, Pastoral Theology, 1945, p. 323 f.]

55 Nitzsch-Stephan presents the matter thus: “The primary defect of Kant’s [ethical] interpretation of Christianity inheres also in those interpretations which hold that the Christian religion is the perfect religion for no other reason than that it is the religion of love towards God and men. Now, it is true that Christianity stresses the duty of love towards God and all men as no other religion does. But mere obligations do not constitute a religion and the Christian’s love is not merely to be patterned after God’s love, but according to our Christian faith the love of God is the prerequisite and enabling cause of our love. We love because we know and realize that God, redeeming us and forgiving us our sins, first loved us.” (Op. cit., p. 147.) Ihmels, too, states that “the ethical quality of any activity or movement is not determined by the individual external actions but solely by the motives from which the ethical behavior flows” (Zentralfragen, p. 51).

56 Col. 2:10: “Ye are complete in Him.” Not only the “more advanced” Christians, but all who have received Christ Jesus the Lord by faith, vv. 5, 7, are perfect in Christ. The Apostle is here warning the Christians against the philosophy which belittles our perfection in Christ and sets itself up as the way to greater perfection, v. 8; they must learn that the philosophy which claims authority in the domain of religion is “vain deceit,” , being the product of man (“after the tradition of men”), the beggarly wisdom of the world (“after the rudiments of the world”), that is, Law. (See Cremer, Woerterbuch, sub .) — The Christians, on the contrary, have their “doctrinal norm” in Christ (“after Christ”), and through that they have obtained the highest perfection. Let them realize the glory of Christ’s person and the unsurpassable excellence of the benefits they have in Christ. Christ is not a mere man, but one in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily and who is exalted above all principalities and powers in heaven; it is therefore impossible that these angelic powers should be the source of a higher perfection, as the false teachers asserted (v. 18). And no greater benefit can come to the Christians than those which they have in Christ; they have been raised from death in sin to spiritual life through “the circumcision of Christ,” namely, Baptism, through the forgiveness of their sins. And this remission Christ gained through His death on the Cross (“the objective propitiatory sacrifice of Christ’s death,” v. 14, Meyer), by which He has blotted out the handwriting of ordinances against us, the penalty exacted by the Law.

The “perfect,” , of 1 Cor. 2:6, too (“howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect”), are not the “mature” Christians, those who have penetrated “into the higher sphere of thorough and comprehensive insight,” particularly of an insight into “the future conditions of the Messianic kingdom” (Meyer, etc.), but according to the context all those who through the operation of the Holy Ghost believe the Gospel, which is hidden to this world, even to the princes of this world. The “perfect” are all Christians (Luther, Olshausen, etc.). Wolf’s Curae reviews the various interpretations of our passage and finds with Luther and most other interpreters that the “perfect” are the believers, those who are described in ch. 1:24 as “the called,” those who obeyed the call. In the entire context nothing is said of “future conditions of the Messianic kingdom” (an interpretation that is colored by chiliastic notions), nor does the context deal specifically with the future bliss of the Christians (some have thus applied verse 9), but only with what they now have by faith in the Gospel of Christ Crucified.

57 Tridentinum, Sess. VI, Can. 11, 12, 20.

58 Thus, e. g., Kirn, Grundriss, 3d ed., p. 118. This substitutes the “Guarantee Theory” for the satisfactio Christi vicaria.

59 See “Some Modern Theories of the Atonement Examined” in Vol. II.

60 Wesen des Christentums, 3d ed., p. 35.

61 The rhetorical question: “Are they all teachers?” (1 Cor. 12:29) means that not all Christians are teachers. According to 1 Tim. 3:2 one who would be a bishop must be “apt to teach,” have a special degree of the ability to teach, for, according to verse 5, he is to take care not only of himself and his own house, but also of the Church of God. Paul stresses this once more in 2 Tim. 2:2: “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also.” Therefore men must not be elected to the teaching office by lot or in any other haphazard way; only such may be chosen as possess the qualifications set down in 1 Tim. 3:1 ff.; Titus 1:5-11, one of which is a special aptitude to teach.

62 See, for instance, Richard Gruetzmacher, Studien zur dogm. Theol., 3, p. 120 ff.

63 According to John 8:31-32 the knowledge of the truth is mediated by the Word of Christ, which we have in the Word of His Apostles (John 17:20): “If ye continue in My Word … ye shall know the truth.” And only by believing Christ’s Word do men “continue in it.” When a teacher does not continue in Christ’s Word, the Apostle does not credit him with knowledge but with ignorance (1 Tim. 6:3-4).

64 Cf. Zezschwitz, R. E., 2d ed., VII, 585 ff. Luther in his “Short Preface” to the Large Catechism defines a catechism as “an instruction for children and the simple-minded,” as an “instruction for children, what every Christian must needs know, so that he who does not know this could not be numbered with the Christians, nor be admitted to any Sacrament” (Trigl. 575). Cf. F. Bente, in Concordia Triglotta, “Historical Introductions,” pp. 62–93, on catechisms in general and Luther’s Catechism in particular, also for a bibliography of recent literature.

65 Luthardt, Kompendium, p. 4. Walther, Lehre und Wehre, 14, 5. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, VIII, 1: “We understand the Greek theologia to mean the knowledge and doctrine of the deity” (ratio sive sermo).

66 Aristotle says that Thales and those who before him speculated on the origin of things “theologized,” (Metaph. I, 3). According to Josephus, Pherekydes of Syros in the sixth century wrote a book with the title Theologia, in which he philosophized about the heavens and things divine (C. Apionem, I, 2). Cicero writes: “In the beginning there were three Joves — so say those who are called theologians” (De Nat. Deorum III, 21). Augustine quotes Varro, a contemporary of Cicero, on three types of heathen theology: “The mythical genus, used mostly by the poets; the physical, used by the philosophers; and the civil, which the people and the priests should know and employ.” (De Civ. Dei, VI, 5.) — Study Augustine’s criticism of the heathen theology in this and the following chapters. See further Buddeus, Inst., 1741, p. 48 sqq. August Hahn, Lehrbuch d. Chr. Gl., 2d ed., I, 104 f.; Walther, Lehre und Wehre, 1868, p. 5 f.

67 Quenstedt I, 13: “Theologia acroamatica teaches and establishes the mysteries of the faith and refutes the errors contrary to the sound doctrine more accurately and copiously, and is the province of the bishops and preachers in the Church.” [According to Koenig, theology is divided into: ‘catechetical, or simple, such as is required of all Christians, and acroamatic, or more accurate, which is the province of the learned, the ministers of the Word.’ “]

68 Quenstedt, I, 13: “Theologia acroamatica is the province of those who in the seminaries instruct, not Christians but the future teachers of the Christians; and these are called theologians .” — Luther has some interesting remarks on the theological doctorate. He calls the pomp and ceremony connected with the conferring of this degree “Larven,” mummeries. But he does not condemn the thing outright. It is all right if the recipients of the high degree recognize that while the thing in itself means nothing, the honor conferred on them is the honor of “the service in the Word.” (St. L. XXI a:564. II:260.)

69 Luther also calls the centurion at Capernaum a “theologus” because he “argued in such a fine Christian way that one who has been a doctor for four years could not have done better” (St. L. XII: 1185). And on Rom. 12:7 Luther comments: “Hence you will perceive whom Paul makes doctors of Holy Scripture, namely, all who have the faith, and no one else. They should judge all doctrine, and their decision must stand, even though it be against the Pope, the councils and all the world.” (St. L. XII:335.) Gerhard, too, says that the term theology is used “for the Christian faith and religion as it is found in all believers, the learned as well as the unlearned, and in this sense all who know and accept the articles of faith” (locus “De Natura Theologiae,” §4), “who teach and profess these articles” (locus “De Ministerio Ecclesiastico,” §64), are called theologians. According to 1 Pet. 3:15, Col. 3:16, etc., it is the business of the Christians in general to teach and profess the Christian faith and religion. — There are those among the so-called laymen whose knowledge of the Christian doctrine and whose interest in the affairs of the Church exceeds the average. We like to call them “lay theologians.” The Apostolic Church had such lay theologians. The list of greetings in Romans 16 seems to indicate that. In the vast majority of cases the lay theologians have proved a blessing to the Church. Lehre und Wehre, 1860, p. 352, shows that the fear of having “laymen at the synodical conventions” is unwarranted.

70 Thus Gregory Nazianzen (d. ca. 390) was called because in speech and writing he had so ably defended the doctrine of the deity of Christ. And we know that the Church Fathers called the evangelist John 6 because his Gospel lays particular stress on the eternal, essential deity of Christ. Thus Athanasius (4th century): “As also the theologian says: ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ ” The Church Fathers distinguished between theology as the doctrine of the deity of Christ and (dispensano) as the doctrine concerning the incarnate Christ. Thus Gregory Nazianzen: “The doctrine of the theology or of the nature is one thing, the doctrine of the economy is another.” — By reason of this specific sense of the verb , to theologize, came to be used in the sense of “confessing as God.” Thus Athanasius: “How can you theologize the Spirit (confess the Spirit as God) if you are not ready to say that He has the same essence and glory, will and power, as the Father and the Son?” (De S. Trin., dial. 3. Opp. ed. Bonutius II, 190 sq. Quoted by Walther in Lehre und Wehre, 1868, p. 7.) — Basilius uses the word theology to designate the doctrine of the mystery of the Trinity: “Had we not better remain silent lest the dignity of theology be endangered because of the poverty and weakness of the language?” (Sermo de fide et trinitate. Opp. I, 371. Lehre und Wehre, 1868, p. 8.)

71 Quenstedt: “Theology taken concretely as a habitus is the God-given practical aptitude of the mind which the Holy Ghost bestows upon a man through the Word, for the purpose of leading sinful man to faith in Christ, and to eternal salvation” (Systema I, 16). Similarly Gerhard (locus “De Natura Theologiae,” ¶31).

72 Quenstedt: “Theology taken abstractly as a system is the body of doctrine taken from the Word of God, by which men are correctly instructed in faith and life unto salvation; in other words, it is the doctrine drawn from the divine revelation that shows how men are to be trained for the service of God through Christ unto eternal life” (I, 16).

73 “Can you imagine St. Paul writing a normative dogmatics after the manner of Hutter’s Compendium Locorum Theologicorum?” Thus the advocates of “academic freedom.” It is a cheap quip and falls flat in the light of 2 Tim. 1:13. The passage states very clearly, first, that Timothy heard (sound words) from the Apostle, words that did not express unsound human opinions, but the pure divine truth; and, secondly, that Paul set these “sound words” before Timothy not as matter of passing entertainment or mere amusement, but as the , copy, model, pattern, norma sanorum verborum, by “which Timothy should be guided in his teaching. Note also the , “hold,” “hold fast”; Timothy is not at liberty to depart from the norm set up by Paul. According to this text, then, Paul did write what we would call a “Normaldogmatik.” Plitt on our passage: “What I have given you use as a pattern, namely, the sound words, ‘the sound doctrine’ (Titus 1:9).” Matthies: “, pattern, as in 1 Tim. 1:16, distinct type, original and model.” Huther (Meyer’s Commentary) remarks: “Luther translates by ‘pattern’ (so, too, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others), but this definition is not in the word itself.” But the words of the text plainly show that Paul is referring to a “pattern.” The by which men are to be guided becomes eo ipso a pattern.

74 Musaeus: “The doctrine regarding God and divine matters issues from the theological aptitude and is its result” (Introd. in Theol. 1679, p. 3). Luthardt holds that the old Lutheran theologians, who defined theology primo loco as a personal aptitude, “a personal qualification,” meant well, but finds that “this definition is scientifically incorrect” (Komp., 10th ed., p. 4). We fail to see why this definition should be out of line with scientific thinking. Why, Luthardt himself thinks along the same lines! When he with Kahnis defines theology as “the scientific self-consciousness of the Church,” he, too, conceives of theology as a “personal qualification,” since every kind of “self-consciousness,” including the “scientific” kind, presupposes persons, in whom it inheres as a personal attribute. An impersonal self-consciousness is a contradiction in itself. Luthardt will not deny that he, too, has in mind persons within the Church, viz., the theologians who, in distinction from the ordinary Christians, possess a scientific self-consciousness. It is a queer thing by the way, that Luthardt, while thinking of theologians, should define theology as “the scientific self-consciousness of the Church.” The theologians, whether they are equipped with scientific self-consciousnes or not, are not the Church.

75 Cf. Walch, Bibliotheca Theol., II, 667 sqq.; Baumgarten, Theol. Streitigkeiten, III, 425 f.; there is a wealth of material on the controversy concerning this point in Hollaz, Examen Prol., I, qus. 18–21.

76 It is not correct to say that Spener was the first to emphasize this truth. In his tract “Die Allgemeine Gottesgelehrtheit” Spener himself says that others have done that before him. (See Baier, loc. cit.)

77 Quenstedt: “In the field of polemical theology we must take special care not to engage in controversies over useless questions and not to let controversies breed controversies; polemics must not become a quarrelsome and contentious theology, by which the truth is lost through too much disputing” (Systema I, 14).

78 1 Pet. 4:11: “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.” No doctrine may be preached in the Church but “the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:10).

79 What the Apostles taught orally, that () they also set down in writing (1 John 1:3-4).

80 Aug. Pfeiffer: “Theologia positiva, theology in the form of doctrine, is, correctly speaking, nothing else than Holy Scripture itself arranged according to doctrines, its statements set down in the various loci according to a proper method and in fitting order; it follows that in this body of doctrine there is no place for even one article, and be it the least one, which is not based on Scripture” (Thesaurus hermeneut., p. 5, quoted in Baier, I, 43, 76).

81 Comment, ad Gal, see Erl. I, 91: “Neque alia doctrina in ecclesia tradì et audiri debet quam purum Verbum Dei, hoc est, Sancta Scriptura, vel doctores et auditores cum sua doctrina anathema sunto.” St. L. IX:87.

82 This will be presented in detail in the section “The Vicarious Satisfaction’ in Vol. II.

83 Parallel passages: Jer. 14:14; 27:14-16; Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13:2 ff.

84 “Let him speak as the oracles of God.” Luther: “He should be certain that what he is speaking is God’s Word and not his own word” (XII:443).

85 Kahnis, for instance, is very outspoken on this point. In his Zeugnis von den Grundwahrheiten des Protestantismus gegen D. Hengstenberg, Leipzig, 1862, p. 133, he says: “I have not written my dogmatics for the general public, not for the educated laymen, but only for scientific theologians. However, after Dr. Hengstenberg and Dr. Muenkel have, in a most unwarranted manner, brought the matter to the attention of wider circles, I have been forced to address, at least in this essay, a wider circle than the readers of my dogmatics.” Again on page 118 f.: “I cannot believe that Pastor Muenkel, who signs himself Th. D., knows so little of theology that he does not know that there are difficulties in theology which have to be discussed. These investigations and discussions are of course not meant for the common people. But who is spreading them there? Why, periodicals like Pastor Muenkel’s paper. Do not charge me with confusing the people; the blame rests with this man, who, while he is neither a man of science nor a man of the people, goes about like a telltale and scares people by telling them things which they need not know. If Pastor Muenkel cannot stand the mountain heights with their avalanches and landslides, he had better stay on the Lueneburger Heide and tend sheep, raise bees, and grow asparagus.” — It is only natural that Kahnis, who denies that the Holy Scripture is “the inspired textbook of the pure doctrine” (p. 127), would insist that it requires the scientific apparatus of the theologians to establish what is Christian doctrine.

86 Bretschneider, Systematische Entwicklung aller in der Dogmatik vorkommenden Begriffe, 3d ed., p. 68.

87 Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1848, I, 7; quoted in Baier-Walther, I. 5.

88 Systema, Proleg. de Theologia, p. 2, in Quenstedt, Syst., I, 5 sq., under Thesis IV.

89 He writes in the locus “De Natura Theologiae,” §15 sqq.: “The archetypal, or prototypal, theology is in God the Creator, inasmuch as God knows Himself in Himself and knows the universe through Himself by one immutable act of knowing. Ectypal theology is the outgrowth of archetypal theology (a copy, so to say, of it), communicated to man through God’s grace.” The means by which this knowledge, original only in God, is communicated, is the external Word, “by which God here in time speaks to men.” It follows that Christian theology takes its teaching exclusively from Scripture: “The supernatural, adequate, and proper principle of theology is the divine revelation; and because we today have this divine revelation nowhere else than in the sacred writings, that is, in the prophetic books of the Old Testament and the apostolic books of the New Testament, we say that the written Word of God, that is, Holy Scripture, is the only and the proper principle of theology.” Cp. also Quenstedt, Syst., I, 5 sqq.

90 Systerna, p. 2: “So far as it [the theology of the “pilgrims”] reproduces and expresses the archetype revealed to us in the Word, it is true theology. Whatever deviates from that archetype is false theology and heretical mataeology.”

91 Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 258: “In our day the orthodox doctrine of inspiration has hardly any standing in dogmatics.” Horst Stephan: “Today the doctrine of inspiration is discarded by scientific theology; it has retained its hold — a strong one at that — only in the theology of the laymen” (Glaubenslehre, 1921, p. 52).

92 Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 12 ff. 15: “No one bases his dogmatics on the norma normans” (the Bible), “as was the fashion among the old Protestants.”

93 Scripture demands 1 Cor. 1:10 that “ye all speak the same thing: … that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment”; Eph. 4:5: one faith.” The “sound words,” 2 Tim. 1:13, the “sound doctrine,” (Luther: “die heilsame Lehre”), Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; 1 Tim. 1:10, is the “pure doctrine” (reine Lehre), God’s own doctrine, unmixed with human thoughts; as the Apostle himself explains the term (1 Tim. 6:3).

94 Glaubenslehre, Giessen 1921, p. 21.

95 They even quoted 2 Cor. 3:3: “Ye are … the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God.” Francis Coster asserts in his Enchiridion Controversiarum Praecipuarum, c. 1, p. 43, that “Christ did not want to have His Church depend on something written on paper, nor would He entrust His mysteries to parchments.” (See Quenstedt, I, 90, 92.)

96 See the quotations in chapter 5: “The Cause of Divisions.”

97 Compare Zwingli’s admonition that “no one should permit the anxious searching of the words [the words of institution] to raise scruples in his mind; for we do not base our doctrine on them” (reprinted in Luther’s Works, St. L. XX:477).

98 Quoted in Ihmels, Zentralfragen, p. 60; Ihmels discusses this “psychological point of contact,” p. 78.

99 Schriftbeweis, 2d ed., I, 562.

100 For further discussion of this point see Vol. II, the last section of the chapter “The Personal Union and the Christological Theories of Modern Theology,” and chapter 8 of “Saving Faith.”

101 Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 7: “Julius Kaftan and Herrman are the most radical proponents of this view. But also Ihmels insists that ‘only those things need to be sharply defined of which faith is immediately certain’ (Zentralfragen, p. 101).”

102 Ihmels, Aus der Kirche etc., 1914, p. 18.

103 See his book “Der Glaubensakt des Christen, nach Begriff und Fundament untersucht,” 1891, p. 119. Also his Theologie des A. T., 1921, p. 313.

104 See Ed. Koenig, Der Glaubensakt, p. 63; Concise Dictionary of Rel. Knowledge, by Jackson, sub “Lessing.”

105 Bertheau in R. E. 2d ed., VIII, 611.

106 Before there was a written Word, the spoken Word of God served the same purpose. God has always accompanied the historical facts through which He effected our redemption with His historical Word, lest men indulge in their own thoughts about the appearance of the Son of God in the flesh.

107 Studien zur systematischen Theologie, Vol. III, p. 40. Gruetzmacher unfortunately does not always apply the truth he so well expresses.

108 Moderne Theologie des Alten Gkubens, 1906, p. 120 f.

109 Dogmatische Studien, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1892, pp. 104–135.

110 Glaubenslehre, 1921, p. 183.

111 Kirn, R. E., 3d ed., XX, 574; also in his Ev. Dogm., 3d ed., p. 118. Cp. the section “Some Modern Theories of the Atonement Examined” in Vol. II.

112 Throughout Scripture God’s Law is taught (Matt. 22:37-40), and throughout Scripture God’s Gospel is taught (Rom. 1:1-2; 3:21; Acts 10:43). The Apology states: “All Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics, the Law and the promises. For in some places it presents the Law, and in others the promise concerning Christ.” (Trigl. 121, 5.)

113 Luther: “Die da glaubeten an den Herrn.”

114 See the section “Saving Faith Is Trust in the Grace That is Offered to Us in the Gospel” in Vol. II, p. 446 ff. — The old distinction between the fundamentum substantiale [Christ] and the fundamentum organicum [the Word of the Gospel] does not set up two separate and distinct foundations of faith, but simply emphasizes, as Hollaz points out (Examen, Proleg., C. 2, qu. 19), the all-important truth that faith can lay hold of Christ only by way of laying hold of the Word. The modern theologians who refuse to accept the Word of the Apostles and Prophets of Christ as God’s Word substitute for the fundamentum organicum “the Person of Christ,” “the living Christ,” etc., as the foundation of faith. But he who by-passes Christ’s words also misses the “living Christ.”

115 Lehre und Wehre, 67, p. 1 ff.

116 Huther on the words: : “It is the same excommunication as in 1 Cor. 5:5.”

117 The Biblical doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is fully presented in the chapter on “The Resurrection of the Dead,” in Vol. III.

118 Nikolaus Hunnius’ Theologica de Fundamentali Dissensu (1626) and Joh. Huelsemann’s Calvinismus Irreconciliabilis (1646). Walch, Bibliotheca Theologica, II, 486 ff., discusses the complete bibliography, covering also the Reformed writings.

119 This is fully discussed in the section “Baptism a True Means of Grace,” in Vol. III.

120 This is the case with the children of God in the Reformed bodies, who, misled by their teachers, fail to use Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as divinely appointed means of justification. Believing the Gospel, they have the full forgiveness of their sins, full salvation. Both Luther (St. L. XVII: 2212) and the Preface to the Book of Concord (Trigl. 19 f.) call attention to this.

121 “As long as he [man] is persuaded that he can do even the least thing towards his own salvation, he retains some confidence in himself, he does not humble himself before God, but proposes to himself some place, some time, or some works whereby he may at length attain unto salvation” (The Bondage of the Will, St. L. XVIII:1715).

122 Caloinismus Irreconciliabilis, p. 432, quoted in Baier-Walther, 1:62: “Not every teaching which in its nature adds or destroys some prerequisite necessary to faith or some consequence of it, also has this effect in the mind of every man.”

123 In the Prologue to his Retractationes Augustine says: “From ever so many of my disputations many things could be collected which, if not false, still certainly appear so or, in other cases, do not necessarily prove convincing. But what faithful servant of Christ does not tremble at this word of Christ: ‘Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment’? (Matt. 12:36.)” Augustine continues: “It behooves me therefore that I judge myself under the one Master whose judgment of my offenses I desire to escape.” (Ed. Basil. I, 1.)

124 Luther’s classical dictum on “the Christian error”: “You cannot say, I am going to err after the manner of a Christian; a Christian errs unwittingly” (St. L. XIX:1132).

125 The meaning of the hapax legomenon is clear beyond any doubt. It designates the inner self-condemnation, suopte judicio condemnatus. God’s Word, with which he has been confronted, has condemned him, and he has felt this condemnation in his conscience. Huther on this passage: “He sins, being conscious of his guilt and condemnation.”

126 1 Cor. 5:6: “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Hence 2 Cor. 7:1 admonishes us to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit.”

127 Meyer, too, like Luther and our old theologians, refers Gal. 5:9 to the domain of doctrine.

128 See the case of Adam Neuser, in Vol. II, in the section “The Doctrine of Christ” (p. 273 f.).

129 R. E., 2d ed., VI, 777 (Trigl., “Historical Introductions,” p. 98).

130 Cardinal Bellarmine taught a grave error when he said: “Catholics extend the object of justifying faith as far as the Word of God extends” (Lib. I, De Justif., c. 4. See Quenstedt, II, p. 362). That would make saving faith a work. Over against this error it needs to be stressed that the only object of the fides justificans is the promise of the Gospel, offering the remission of sins for Christ’s sake. See the section “The Sole Object of Saving Faith Is the Gospel” in Vol. II.

131 See the addition to the third edition of his Glaubenslehre I, 279; also Proceedings of the Synodical Conference, 1886, p. 35.

132 Compare F. Bente, American Lutheranism, II, p. 9. The same unionism and indifferentism infected the former General Synod, pp. 19, 48, 170; the General Council, pp. 195, 224; and the United Synod of the South, p. 232 ff.

133 More on this in the locus on “Holy Scripture,” in the chapter “The Authority of Scripture and the Confessions.”

134 The attempt to solve this problem has led to Dualism in its various forms, and to the denial of sin. Nitzsch-Stephan, Ev. Dogmatik, 3d ed., p. 438. More particulars in section “The Doctrine of God.”

135 This question was discussed at great length during the Pelagian controversies, but also in later periods. See Chemnitz, Loci, I, “De Peccato Originis,” ed. 1599, I, 567 sqq., for the historical material. On Luther’s position Chemnitz says: “Luther declared that publicly he would assert nothing in answer to this question, but that he, for himself, favored traducianism; furthermore, that the Papists must be censured for their audacity and presumptuousness in creating an article of faith in an obscure matter, without one clear testimony of Scripture, in order to subvert the Scripture doctrine of original sin.” Chemnitz adds: “… let us learn from this example to cut short, piously, firmly, and in well-founded simplicity, these subtle disputations which endanger faith. As to the causa efficiens [of original sin], it is sufficient to know that the fall of our first parents justly resulted in this, that they transmitted to all their offspring the very same nature, both as to body and as to soul, as was theirs after the Fall. In what manner, however, the soul contracts this evil, faith can safely ignore, because the Holy Spirit did not want to make it known to us through certain and clear Scripture testimonies.” Cf. also Baier’s brief historical remarks, I, 67, nota c; Luthardt, Dogmatik, 11th ed., p. 168 f.

136 The attempt to answer this question must lead either to Calvinism (the denial of the gratia universalis) or to Semi-Pelagianism and synergism (the denial of the sola gratia). — It is, of course, not sinful nor indicative of false teaching to pose the problem. In practically all periods of the Church the problem has been stated in various forms (Cur alii, alii non? Cur non omnes? Cur alii prae aliis?) But they sin and teach false doctrine who, with Melanchthon, the father of synergism in the Lutheran Church, would solve the problem by means of the “dissimilar conduct.” The Formula of Concord does not warn against acknowledging the problem, but it warns against any attempted solution of it. “In these and similar questions Paul fixes a certain limit (certas metas) to us, how far we should go, namely, that in the one part we should recognize God’s judgment … which we all have well deserved,” and that in the other part, “we acknowledge and praise God’s goodness to the exclusion of, and contrary to, our merit,” since God “does not harden and reject us,” who are certainly in the same guilt. — See the fuller discussion of this matter in the locus on “Conversion” and the locus on “The Election of Grace,” in Vols. II and III.

137 Reusch in his Annotationes in Baieri Comp., p. 52: “Reflection upon them is useless, the disputations about them unprofitable.” In recounting the futile labors of the Scholastics on the many questions which Scripture leaves unanswered, Dannhauer summarizes the result and practical benefits of their labors in the words: “The one milks the billy goat, and the other holds a sieve,” “unus hircum mulget, alter supponit cribrum” (Hodosophia, Phaen. XI, p. 667).

138 What Scripture has revealed concerning the condition of the soul between death and the resurrection will be presented in Vol. III.

139 In the language of the modern theologians who deny the inspiration of Scripture and want to draw the Christian doctrine out of their own Ego, the term “theological problems” has a different meaning. See Chapter 16, “Theology and Certainty,” p. 110.

140 Thus Winchester Donald, The Expansion of Religion, 1896, p. 125. This matter is fully presented in Lehre und Wehre, 1920, p. 270 ff.: “Die moderne Diesseitstheologie,” and in Lehre und Wehre, 1921, p. 2 ff.: “Das Christentum als Jenseitsreligion.” Here also the pertinent literature is mentioned. Cp. also Proceedings of the Michigan District, 1919, p. 44 ff. The creedless character of the modern social gospel will be discussed later.

141 Cp. R. Seeberg, Brauchen wir ein neues Dogma? 1892, and: Grundwahrheiten der chr. Rel, 5th ed., 1910, p. 61 ff. Theodore Kaftan, Moderne Theologie des alten Glaubens, 2d ed., 1906; Loofs, in R. E., 3d ed., IV, 753 ff., sub ν. Dogmengeschickte. Nitzsch-Stephan Dogmatik 3d ed., p. 2 ff.; 47 ff.; Horst Stephan, Glaubenslehre, 1921, p. 19 ff.

142 In Scripture the term is used to designate ordinances of both the Church and the State. Cf. Luke 2:1; Acts 16:4.

143 Trid., Sess. VI, can. 10, 11, 12, 20.

144 Guenther, Populaere Symbolik, 3d ed., p. 378 f.

145 See the decree of the Vatican Council, Popular Symbolics, p. 162.

146 See the chapters “The Means of Grace According to the ‘Enthusiasts’ ” and “Comprehensive Characterization of the Reformed Teaching of the Means of Grace,” in Vol. III.

147 More on this point under “The Representative Church” in Vol. III.

148 More on this point in the chapter “Holy Scripture and Exegesis” in the locus on “Holy Scripture.”

149 Walther, Pastorale, p. 81 f. [Fritz, Pastoral Theology, 1945, p. 334 f.]

150 Thus Scripture gives us reliable information on the metaphysical problems concerning the nature and the origin of things (Col. 1:16-17; Gen. 1:11-12), for which the philosophers have not yet found a satisfactory answer.

151 Luthardt, Kompendium, 11th ed., pp. 4, 6.

152 Lehre und Wehre, XIV, 76 f.

153 The flesh of the theologian would persuade him that his office as pastor or theological professor would be safer and be more respected if it were supported by the authority and power of the State. That is the reason why so many favor the “State Church” and are against the “Free Church,” despite the fact that according to God’s will the Church should function externally as a free Church. And the free Church theologians, too, are ever exposed to the temptation to resort to unchurchly means for the building of the Church, as witnessed by the “social affairs” in vogue here in the United States, the community churches, the clamor for a “strong church government,” and other phenomena.

154 Der Christliche Glaube, nach den Grundsatzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt, I, 16.

155 See p. 18.

156 The Bondage of the Will, St L. XVIII: 1680. – More on this in the next section.

157 Systema I, 42.

158 In this connection we call attention to Kirn’s idea that a man is sufficiently prepared for understanding the Gospel if he “seeks God and strives for moral perfection” (Eν. Dogmatik 3d ed., p. 37). The very opposite is true. Only he who despairs of achieving any kind of moral perfection, only he who knows that because of his moral disability and turpitude he is subject to eternal perdition (terrores conscientiae, contritio), is prepared to “understand” and appreciate the Gospel.

159 Frank, System der Christlichen Gewissheit, 2d ed., I, 128. Ihmels, Die Christliche Wahrheitsgewissheit, 1901, p. 8. Horst Stephan, Glaubenslehre, 1921, p. 66.

160 Cp. Luther on Matt. 13:15. St. L. VII:194 f.

161 They say: “In our day the orthodox doctrine of inspiration has hardly any significance in dogmatics. True, it is still being upheld by a few, e. g., Koelling and Noesgen, with some modifications. A theologian, strictly conservative, says concerning these laggards: ‘Their number is small, their labor unsuccessful, and their indignation at the comrades who are pressing forward on new paths impresses no one.’ … The rest of the theologians, including the conservatives, reject the old doctrine.” (Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 258.)

162 “Der Christliche Glaube, nach den Grundsaetzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt von D. Friedrich Schleiermacher,” appeared in print in 1821.

163 Ev. Glaubenslehre, p. 43 ff.

164 Die Kirche Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert, pp. 90, 84.

165 Schriftbeweis, 2d ed., p. 11.

166 System der chr. Gewissheit, 2d ed., I, 49. [In the English translation, System of the Christian Certainty, p. 46.]

167 Theol. Literaturblatt, Leipzig, 1922, p. 395. As to Bachmann’s phrase “as a matter of principle,” we would say that Frank certainly believed in this “full self-assurance” while he was lecturing to his students and writing books in his study. But from what we have heard concerning him and from what he wrote elsewhere we feel justified in assuming that his communion with God did not take place on the basis of his “self-assurance,” but on the basis of the “objective act of redemption” and the objective “Word of God.” Just as Frank assumes, in his Theologie der Konkordienformel (I, p. 135), that Melanchthon never believed in his synergism, so we assume that Frank never really believed in “the self-assurance of Christianity and its theology.” It should be noted, in passing, that we are not impugning the personal Christianity of all advocates of the self-assurance theory. While it is certain, according to Scripture, that this theory, when consistently applied in practice, precludes personal Christianity, it is also true, on the other hand, that in the field of theology, too, “felicitous inconsistency” plays a role; men do “keep a double set of books.” A few years ago German periodicals reported that a theologian who had been cultivating this same theology of self-assurance declared on his deathbed that now he found his entire theology summarized in John 3:16. He thus found it necessary to go beyond his own I, “beyond himself,” as Luther expresses it; he actually took his stand on a foundation outside himself.

168 Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften, 2d ed., III, 65. The last sentence italicized by Zoeckler.

169 Frank asks the Christian to base his assurance on something within himself. His statement reads: “With the breaking through and the installation of the new I in the center of the personal nature, the is gained” (op. cit., p. 133; Engl., p. 128).

170 See the section above, “Open Questions and Theological Problems.”

171 See Ihmels, Zentralfragen, pp. 159-166. Also Kirn, Dogmatik, pp. 1-6.

172 With our old theologians we call the good works the testimonia Spiritus Sancti externa in distinction from the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum, which consists in faith in God’s Word wrought by the Holy Ghost. The internal testimony of the Spirit and faith are one and the same thing. Cf. the fuller presentation in the chapters “Faith and the Testimony of the Holy Ghost” and “Justification on the Basis of Works,” in Vol. II.

173 Also in Frank’s theology the articles of the Christian faith “have been mutilated and crippled” by his use of the Ego method. That has been demonstrated in the article “Franks Theologie,” Lehre und Wehre, 1896, pp. 65 ff., 97 ff., 129 ff., 161 ff., 201 ff., 262 ff. The writer, Dr. Stoeckhardt, does not place Frank outright in the liberal wing of the theology of self-certainty. He acknowledges that “Frank permits certain elements of the Christian truth to remain.” That, however, is, as Stoeckhardt points out, “not due to his system, but to his inconsistency. This residue of Christianity has maintained itself against the antagonistic principle of the system. Frank and his system deserve no credit for these good features in his theology.” Stoeckhardt brings proof that Frank does away with the infallible divine authority of Holy Scripture at the behest of the Ego principle. While Christ and His Apostles unhesitatingly identify the Scriptures and God’s Word, Frank says: “I would not like to assume the responsibility of teaching a Christian that faith in the saving truth involves faith in the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture” (op. cit., p. 97). Frank also discards the satisfactio vicaria of Christ. Though Scripture expressly teaches that Christ suffered the punishment which we should have suffered (Is. 53:5; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13), Frank declares: “If substitution is made to mean that Christ suffered whatever condemned mankind would have had to suffer, the satisfactio vicaria falls to the ground, for the simple reason that that is not what Christ suffered” (op. cit., p. 138). Frank presents the doctrine of justification correctly when he describes the righteousness involved as the iustitia extra nos posita, but he falsifies it when he says that faith comes into consideration in justification, not merely as medium , but also as the conduct of man, as an act of free self-determination. (Ibid.)

174 Op. cit., 119, resp. 114.

175 Frank declares: “To the Holy Ghost I cannot appeal in connection therewith, since, of course, it is first a question whether what I receive is testimony of the Holy Ghost; exactly as I cannot appeal to sacred Scripture when it is in question how I come to admit the claim of Scripture to be sacred to me” (op. cxt., p. 143).

176 Frank cites Fichte’s Idealism, according to which the subject posits the object, in support of the scientific character of self-certainty. He says: “That is the abiding truth in the Idealism of Fichte” (Christliche Gewissheit, I, 61). O. Fluegel describes Fichte’s Idealism thus in Probleme der Philosophie und ihre Loesungen, p. 96: “Fichte holds, with Berkeley, that things exist merely in the mind, but he goes beyond Berkeley in that he no longer seeks an external cause which produces these conceptions of the mind but, expressly denying any such external cause, makes the mind itself the sole originator of the things which seem to exist outside of it.” Fluegel finds “only about two” inconsistencies in Fichte; H. Ulrici calls Fichte’s Idealism a “senseless one-sidedness” (R. E., 2d ed., XV, 381).

177 See Ihmels, Die christliche Wahrheitsgewissheit, pp. 124–167.

178 Zentralfragen, 2d ed., p. 166.

179 The influence of Schleiermacher in the United States is set forth in Strong’s long article on “The Theology of Schleiermacher as Illustrated by His Life and Correspondence,” in his Miscellanies, II, 1–57.

180 Lehre und Wehre, 1923, 89 f.

181 We quote from The Fundamentalist, Vol. II, No. 1: “The Radicals are set on substituting ‘evolution’ for creation, ‘the principle animating the cosmos’ for the living God, consciousness of the individual for the authority of the Bible, reason for revelation, sight for faith, ‘social service,’ for salvation, reform for regeneration, the priest for the prophet, ecclesiasticism for evangelism, the human Jesus for the divine Christ, a man-made ‘ideal society’ for the divinely promised kingdom of God, and humanitarian efforts in this poor world for an eternity of joy in God’s bright home.” Particular attention is called to a widely publicized sermon of Dr. Fosdick: “Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, for example, not only preached his now famous sermon here in New York on the question, ‘Shall the Fundamentalists Win?’ in which he repudiated the inspiration of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, and the second coming of our Lord, but this sermon was then put into pamphlet form, and has been broadcast throughout the nation.”

182 The theologians who are opposed to “doctrinal progress” and “progressive theology” have been branded “repristinating theologians,” particularly the so-called Missourians (Preface to Lehre und Wehre, 1875, 1 ff., 33 ff., especially 65 ff.), but also others, for example, Philippi. Referring to Philippi, Hofmann gibes: “Let him who likes to take things easy keep on sleeping” (Schutzschriften, I, p. 2). —See the articles, “Die falschen Stuetzen der modernen Theorie von den offenen Fragen,” Lehre und Wehre, 1868, 97 ff. and “Die moderne Lehr entwicklungshaeresie,” Lehre und Wehre, 1877, 129 ff.

183 Peake on Col. 2:8: “There is no condemnation of philosophy in itself, but simply of the empty but plausible sham that went by that name in Colossae” (in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, p. 522). Thus also, in substance, Meyer and perhaps the majority of the modern exegetes. However, according to the text and the context, the Apostle warns against all philosophy in so far as it meddles with the Christian doctrine and proposes to supplement or improve it. That is, says the Apostle, “vain deceit,” since philosophy is nothing but human wisdom, “after the tradition of men,” while the Christians are taught “after Christ,” who is not a mere man, but He in whom “dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” which means that the Christian doctrine, in contradistinction to all human doctrine, is divine doctrine. Cf. Note 56. In short, our passage absolutely excludes from theology all philosophy, because philosophy is made up of the thoughts of men. Meyer thinks that when “Luther so often condemned philosophy,” he had in mind “the degeneration of philosophy in the Aristotelian scholasticism.” But see Luther’s statement, St. L. 1:621, quoted on page 17. Luther praises the philosophers in so far as they taught parts of the Law, their natural reason being their guide. Nevertheless he maintains: “The philosophers are not theologians; with good reason Paul therefore warns us against philosophy (Col. 2:8), that is, against all philosophy, because the philosopher has nothing but words of human wisdom, which certainly do not agree with the Gospel and cannot agree with it.” (St. L. XXII: 1932.) Again: “The philosophers have here and there spoken of God, of His providence, which rules all things, in a way which is not at all inept; to some these words seem so Christian that they are ready to place Socrates, Xenophon, Plato, etc., among the Prophets. Yet, because in these discussions the philosophers are ignorant of the fact that God sent His Son into the world to save sinners, these fine and beautiful pronouncements are, according to our text (Gen. 6:5-6), consummate ignorance of God and plain blasphemies, for the text states bluntly that all imagination and effort of the human heart is only evil” (St. L. 1:484 f.)

184 In his treatise On the Councus and Churches he writes: “This, then, was the purpose for which the four chief councils were held. The first, at Nicea, defended the deity of Christ against Arius; the second, at Constantinople, defended the deity of the Holy Ghost against Macedonius; the third, at Ephesus, defended the one person of Christ against Nestorius; the fourth, at Chalcedon, defended the two natures in Christ against Eutyches; but they did not thereby establish any new articles of faith. For these four articles are established far more abundantly and powerfully in St. John’s Gospel alone, even though the other Evangelists and St. Paul and St. Peter had written nothing about them, though all these, together with the Prophets, teach them and testify mightily to them. These four councils the bishops of Rome, according to their decree, hold to be like the four Evangelists, as though these matters, together with all articles of faith, did not stand far more richly in the Gospels, and as though the councils had not taken them from the Gospels; so finely do these asses of bishops understand what the Gospels and the councils are. And if these four chief councils do not intend to make or establish anything new in the way of articles of faith, and cannot do so, as they themselves confess, how much less can such power be ascribed to the other councils, which must be held of smaller account, if these four are to be called the chief councils.’ … And if they do establish new things with regard to faith and good works, be assured that the Holy Spirit is not Aere, but only the unholy spirit and his angels.” (St. L. XVI:2248 f.)

185 Epitome, Trigl., p. 777. The Catalogus Testimcmorum (Trigl 1107–1149) brings historic proof that the Formula of Concord brought no new doctrine on the Person of Christ, and particularly on the communicatio idiomatum, but the doctrine of orthodox antiquity.

186 Quoted in Lehre und Wehre, 1875, p. 70. The evidence that the doctrinal development attempted by modern theology does not represent an improvement of the Christian doctrine, but a defection from it is brought by Walther, in a most detailed form, in the series of articles which appeared in Lehre und Wehre, 1875, 1876, 1878, entitled: “Was ist es um den Fortschritt der modernen Theologie in der Lehre?” Walther calls the theory that the dogmas are the result of a gradual development a “sister of Romanism in a Protestant mask,” a theory which turns the Church “into a school of philosophy, whose task it is to search for the truth eternally, while the Church, according to God’s Word, is the bride (Hausehre), to whom the truth has been entrusted as her most precious treasure, as the ‘good thing’ which she is to keep by the Holy Ghost, 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 1 Tim. 6:20.” Walther also, together with the old theologians, calls attention to the fact that the Church, in the course of its history, does not exhibit a development of doctrine, progressive and tending upwards, but rather resembles, as touching the public teaching of the true doctrine, the waxing and waning moon, “sometimes experiencing seasons of special visitations of grace, sometimes eclipses.” (Lehre und Wehre, 1868, p. 136 f.) In 1862 Dr. Muenkel, in the preface of his Neues Zeitblatt, wrote: “There is hardly one doctrine left which has not in a marked degree been subjected to recastings, additions, and eliminations. Starting with the Trinity, proceeding to the doctrine of the Person and of the office of Christ, to the doctrines of faith and justification, of the Sacraments and of the Church, down to eschatology, you will scarcely find anything in its old form and with its former value. Often it is changed to such a degree that only the old frame still reminds one of the old picture, and at times even the frame has been smashed as being entirely too narrow and old-fashioned. A small sample to illustrate this: While Christ, according to the Church doctrine, is true God also in His state of humiliation, they now have emptied Him of the divine attributes, without which no man can conceive of the deitv, or they let Him gradually grow into His deity and achieve it in His rising from the dead. The death of Christ is no longer permitted to be taught as satisfying for our sins and reconciling us to God. The righteousness of faith, consisting in God’s declaring us righteous, is said to be too wooden and externalistic; in a covert manner the works are again drawn in. Law and Gospel are again churned together. The Word of God and preaching are pushed back in such a way as to make it appear that the Sacraments did the real work or, at least, must bring life into the Church. They are again attributing to the Visible Church the attributes of the Invisible Church, as though the Visible Church were indeed the one true Church. And what about the relation of the churches, about the public ministry and church government and eschatology and the eternal life? Everybody knows what the issues in these controversies are, and if they were of no importance, the controversy would not be so sharp…. Suppose all Lutherans were agreed on making all these changes, including those we have not listed, would that still be the Lutheran doctrine? Would anyone dare to call that an improvement of the Lutheran doctrine which sweeps the most essential portions of the Lutheran doctrine outdoors like old rubbish? I, for my part, would not have the heart to call myself a Lutheran but frankly confess: We have all gone astray…. We are ready to predict that before long the scientific theology will lose its standing. While the other sciences with their genuine and undeniable advances are gaining the respect of the world, theology exhibits the utmost confusion; and while it boasts of its progress, nobody knows exactly wherein the progress consists, since one party calls the other party’s progression retrogression; the Church gains nothing from all this progress, nothing but quarrels and bruises and wounds. And so it has come about that the other sciences have united all the cultured nations with a common bond and work with united forces, while theology causes splits and ruptures of every sort instead of carrying out its mission, and that is to unite all nations with its proclamation of the one salvation, which is for all nations. That is a most lamentable and discouraging situation; it surely will not encourage men to entrust themselves to the bewildering mazes of theological science.” (Quoted in Lehre und Wehre; 1875, p. 71 ff.)

187 This point will be discussed at length in the chapter “The Execution of the Prophetic Office in the State of Exaltation,” in Vol. II.

188 See James H. Baker, American University Progress, 1916. In the chapter “Academic Freedom,” p. 84 f., we read: “Problems may arise in the discussion of … religious and political beliefs.” “The university is responsible for pioneer thought and must adhere to facts, and, like Huxley, let them lead where they will.” The Board of Trustees is said to have done its duty “when they appoint able and fearless men to the faculties and attend to the business details of university management.”

189 Theodor Kaftan, Moderne Theologie des alten Glaubens, 2d ed., p. 121.

190 On the different connotations of the term see Bretschneider, Systematische Entwicklung, 3d ed., p. 39; Baier-Walther, I, 76; any larger encyclopedia, e. g., Century Dictionary, VII, 6142, s.v. system; Kliefoth, Der Schriftbeweis des Dr. J. Chr. K. von Hofmann, Schwerin, 1859; pp. 173–190; Nitzsch-Stephan, Eν. Dogm., p. 10 f.; 18.

191 See chapter 10, “Theology as Doctrine.”

192 Cf. the chapters “Justification the Central Doctrine of the Christian Religion,” in Vol. II; “The Postulates of Justification by Faith Without Works,” in Vol. II; “The Relation of Justification to Sanctification,” in Vol. III.

193 That is also stated in Gal. 5:9: “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Meyer: This is said “in regard to doctrine.” Luther stresses that point, St. L. IX:642 ff.

194 That is fully presented in the chapter “Objective and Subjective Reconciliation,” in Vol. II.

195 Quoted in Lehre und Wehre, 1907, p. 316.

196 In the Kirchl. Zeitschrift, published by Kliefoth and Meier, Vol. VI reprinted in book form, with the title: “Der Schriftbeweis des D. von Hofmann, Schwerin, 1859, 174 ff.

197 Kompendium, 11th ed., p. 30.

198 Quenstedt, Systeme, I, 352 sqq., theses 6-8.

199 Clavis Scripturae, 5th ed., 1674, II, 54 ff. Flacius also appends a table showing where according to the various methods each doctrine will have its place.

200 Compendium I, 76.

201 Flacius, op. cit., quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 29.

202 Quenstedt, I, 25.

203 Melanchthon, Loci Communes Rerum Theologicarum seu Hypotyposes Theologiae, 1521. Later editions (1535, 1543, and especially 1548) sacrificed the sola gratia, and Melanchthon thus became the father of synergism and Majorism in the Lutheran Church. That is conclusively shown by F. Bente in the Concordia Trigotta, “Hist. Introductions,” p. 128 ff. — Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, published after the death of Chemnitz (1586) by Polycarp Leyser, 1591. These Loci are not only an amplification, but also a correction of the later editions of Melanchthon’s Loci. Chemnitz’ mastery of theology is evident in his Examen Concilii Tridentini and in his treatise De Duabus Naturis in Christo, 1571. — Leonhard Hutter, Loci Communes Theologici, Sacris Literis diligenter eruti. … This, too, is a sort of commentary on Melanchthon’s Loci. It was published after his death (1616) by the Wittenberg faculty, 1619. Hutter calls Melanchthon “that great Phoenix of our Germany, a most learned man, a man of outstanding merit in the whole field of literature.” At the same time he calls attention to the deplorable (tristis) defection of the later Melanchthon from the pure doctrine. He adds the remark: “By no means, however, do we doubt that toward the end of his life he, in sincere repentance, sought and obtained from Christ the remission of this sin.” These Loci, a textbook for theological seminaries, are an expansion of the Compendium Locorum Theologicorum, a textbook for colleges (Gymnasien). — Gerhard, Loci Theologici cum pro adstruenda veritate tum pro destruenda quorumvis contradicentium falsitate, 1610—1622, 9 volumes, with a supplement in 1625. The Cotta edition (1762—1781) has 20 volumes, with two index volumes. The Ed. Preuss edition (Berlin, 1863–1865; Leipzig, 1875) has nine volumes, with an index volume. — Brochmand (Denmark) Universae Theologiae Systema, 1633; 6th ed., 1658, published in Ulm. Walch praises this work and rightly so (Bibliotheca Theol., I, 57). His censure: “Though we can hardly deny that the discussion of cases of casuistry does not belong in dogmatic theology,” is unfounded. Any full presentation of the Christian faith must also deal with questions of conscience.

204 Dannhauer, Hodosophia Christiana, 1649, presents, in Scriptural imagery, the Christian doctrine in twelve Phaenomena: Man a pilgrim, Scripture the light, the Church the candlestick, God the goal, etc. The best edition is that of 1713. — Koenig, Theologia Positiva Acroamatica, 1664. A brief compend for theological lectures, which Quenstedt made the basis of his Systema. — Calov, Systema Locorum Theologicorum, 1655–1677, 12 vols. The first volumes show careful work, the last volumes less. Calov is the most discerning theologian of the 17th century, a real Scripture theologian, and his Biblia Illustrata is still a classic exegetical work. Tholuck’s judgment of Calov is unjust, spiteful, and even abusive (R. E., 1st ed., II, 506); J. Kunze’s judgment is much fairer (R. E., 3d ed., p. 653 f.). — Quenstedt, Theologia Didactico-polemica sive Systema Theologiae, 1685, 1696, 1702, 1715. Tholuck calls him “the bookkeeper and secretary” of the orthodox theology (R. E., 1st ed., XII, 421). This verdict does not agree with the facts, for Quenstedt was independent in his judgment. To be able to pass a proper judgment on Quenstedt, one must have read him and compared him with other dogmaticians. Also Walch’s opinion (Bibliotheca Theol., I, 58) that Quenstedt classified “the most deserving doctors of our Church” with the opponents “because of their slight dissent” is unjust. The synergism of the Helmstedt theologians and of Musaeus is not a “slight dissent.” Walch is an indifferentist and, besides, has written too much. Even Tholuck, though he cannot entirely suppress malicious remarks, describes Quenstedt as an unassuming, pious character, without a “sharp temper” (R. E., 1st ed., XII, 422). Walch, too, acknowledges that Quenstedt spent great care on the Scripture proof, (op. cit.) — Baier, Compendium Theologiae Positivae; published 1686, saw many editions. Baier is infected with the synergistic bias of his father-in-law Musaeus. The edition of Walther, St. Louis, 1879, is not a mere reprint of Baier’s compend, but by the addition of quotations has been expanded to three volumes. The numerous quotations not only of Luther and our old theologians, but also of the theologians of the 19th century offer source material which enables students to judge fairly both the old and the modern theology. Prof. Theo. Buenger’s index of subjects and persons to this Walther edition shows great diligence and a thorough understanding. — Hollaz, Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum, 1707. “The last genuinely Lutheran dogmatician.” Hollaz did not simply copy, but in his own manner presens what has been taught in the Lutheran Church by its representatives from Luther down to his day. Following the analytical method, he treats the doctrine of eternal salvation in the first part and closes the fourth part with the doctrine of the Church, of the ministry, of civil government, and of the family. Krakewitz, in the preface of the Editio tertia, justly praises Hollaz for bringing a carefully chosen Scripture proof. It is unhistorical to charge Hollaz with peculiarities of which he was not guilty, e. g., the statement concerning the theologia irregenitorum. (Wagenmann, R. E., 2d ed., VI, 266 f.) That only a regenerate person can be called a theologian in the proper sense of the term has been taught abundantly by Luther and by the “orthodox” teachers, as Hollaz himself establishes (Proleg. I, qu. 18-21). Hase’s remark (Hutterus Red., 10th ed., p. 44) that Hollaz recognizes the “religious interest” only “by bringing it in as an afterthought in pious ejaculations” is due in part to Hase’s unchristian viewpoint, in part to his bad habit of coining witty catchwords — a habit which caused much harm among the theological students of the 19th century. Most moderns, too, have an altogether different opinion of Hollaz. Cf. Wagenmann, loc. cit.

205 Rudelbach, Zeitschrift fuer luth. Theologie und Kirche, 1857, p. 382; quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 77.

206 Domer says: “Geo. Calixt established the analytical method, which soon found favor also with his opponents, such as Calov, Dannhauer, and Huelsemann. It [the analytical method] seeks to deduce from some principal truth (the highest good of mortal man) the several dogmatic statements as members and instrumentalities of the prime purpose. This prime purpose is the blessedness of man in the enjoyment of God.” Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, p. 531.

207 Grundriss der ev. Dogmatik, 3d ed., p. 4.

208 We would unnecessarily burden the study of theology and cause confusion if we required our students to consider it a matter of theological importance whether a certain theologian who on principle has declared himself independent of God’s Word and intends to furnish an Ego product is influenced more toward the left by Ritschl or toward the right by Frank.

209 As we have shown, Frank has raised this argument, Ihmels, too, argues similarly, when he says: “It [dogmatics] dare not be content with simply collocating the Biblical doctrinal statements. It ought to be possible to make clear to anyone without further ado, no matter how much he may be inclined to such a conception, that this question would already perplex him, at which point he ought to begin with the presentation of the Scripture statements and how he ought to connect them.” Aus der Kirche, ihrem Lehren und Leben, in the chapter “Aufgabe und Bedeutung der Dogmatik,” p. 121.

210 Clavis II, 58.

211 “Intended?” Scripture does intend to be “uniformly” God’s Word-, 2 Tim. 3:16: , Rom. 3:2; , John 10:35, the Old and the New Testament are “uniformly” the Holy Spirit’s Word, 1 Pet. 1:10-12.

212 Op. cit., pp. 245, 249.

213 Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 26 ff.

214 Kim, Grundriss, 3d ed., p. 4; Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 25 ff. Dorner, Gesch. d. prot. Theologie, p. 559; Gass, Gesch. der prot. Dogmatik, I, 338.

215 Zur Einigung der amerikanisch-lutherischen Kirche, 2d ed., p. 61. [Conversion and Election, p. 90 f.]

216 Glaubenslehre, 1921, p. 52. There is the fear, therefore, of a reaction proceeding from the laymen. In a recent number of the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1923, p. 110, a contributor is weighing the possibility that in our day “a retreat to an unevangelical authority-standpoint [he means a retreat to Scripture as God’s Word] might take place in a similar manner as could be observed in the repristination theology of the first half of the 19th century.” At the same time we see from these expressions of fear that modern theology has lost the Christian knowledge to such an extent as to regard the return to Scripture as the Word of God as a disaster that must be fought strenuously. For this fact the article in the Neue Kirchl. Zeitschrift just mentioned furnishes the proof. It is regarded as a striving for the objectionable repristination theology that, according to a report of Ebrard, the Lutheran students of theology at the university of Erlangen during the ‘30’s of the previous century bought the Book of Concord already in their first year of study.

217 Second ed., III, 149.

218 See R. E., 2d ed., IX, 85; XVIII, 687 ff. If we are briefly to express our own opinion of Walther, we would call him the apologist of the Scripture theology of Luther and of the old dogmaticians, so far as they have proved themselves to be true representatives of the Scripture theology of Luther. Thereby Walther at the same time becomes the apologist of those theologians of our day who are designated “repristination theologians.”

219 Op. cit., pp. 3-4.

220 Op. cit., 34-36.

221 Op. cit., p. 35.

222 Op. cit., pp. 37–40.

223 Op. Cit., p. 41.

224 Op. cit., p. 65.

225 First edition, 1852; 3d ed., 1874; 4th ed., 1893.

226 Op. cit., p. 66.

227 Op. cit., p. 67. When Walther published a new edition of Baier’s Compendium Theologiae Positivae, some seemed to think that the old dogmaticians, and particularly Baier, were regarded as the “standard theologians by Walther and within the Missouri Synod generally. Nitzsch-Stephan: “Baier wrote the Compendium Theologiae Positivae (1686), which represents the mild orthodoxy of Musaeus; it found instant and wide favor, and even today it transmits the old Protestant dogmatics to the neo-orthodox Lutherans [?], especially of America: new editions by Preuss, Berlin, 1864, and by Walther, St. Louis, 1879 ff.” Lehrbuch der ev. Dogmatik, 3d ed., 1912, p. 29. We have stated above that Walthers edition is not a mere reprint of Baier’s Compendium, but has been enlarged by many, and often very extended, quotations to an entirely new book. Not only Luther and the representatives of the old Protestant dogmatics, but also the chief representatives of the 19th century dogmatics are given the floor. The purpose of Walthers edition is to furnish the students of theology the necessary source material for their information on the state of theology in the past and present. Walther on this point: “We [American Lutherans] seek to gain an exact understanding of the things written in our age against the Christian truth, and we do not hide the current attacks with their specious arguments even from our students of theology; we are confident that whoever has come to a thorough and living knowledge of the truth has in that knowledge the sure preservative against infection by the most plausible error.” (Lehre und Wehre, 1875, p. 68.) A number of quotations inserted by Walther are intended as corrections of Baier’s position. “The mild orthodoxy of Musaeus” ascribed to Baier by Nitzsch-Stepnan, which is evident in the synergistic expressions of Baier, Walther used to explain with the remark that Baier was the son-in-law of Musaeus. (Cf. Zur Einigung, 2d ed., p. 38.)

228 We should like to advert here to one more point concerning the unity in doctrine. This complete agreement in doctrine has been attributed! to various factors, especially to the submission of the majority to the authority of one man. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We have known most of the fathers of our Synod personally. They were not only unlike characters, but in part also very strong and independent personalities, so that, humanly speaking, one would expect violent disagreements. These did not occur, and the longer we studied it, the more we saw in it a witness for the unifying power of the Word of God. Also divergent political opinions at the time of the Civil War could not destroy the divinely wrought unity of faith. There was the mutual agreement: “Political opinions did not unite us, neither should they divide us.”

229 The full title: Luthertum und Luegentum. Ein offenes Bekenntnis beim Reformationsjubilaeum der Stadt Leipzig. Von Franz Delitzsch. Grimma, 1839.

230 Eν.-Luth. Dogmatik von D. theol. Adolf Hoenecke, formerly president and professor of the seminary of the General Ev. Luth. Synod of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Other States, at Wauwatosa, Wis. Prepared for publication by his sons Walther and Otto Hoenecke, 1909, 4 volumes. Northwestern Publ. House, Milwaukee, Wis. In the preface to Hoenecke’s dogmatics (p. IX f.) Professor J. Schaller says: “The issue at that time was to provide the Wisconsin Synod with a clear doctrinal position and to clarify its relation to other American church bodies as well as to the Church of Germany. At that time the Wisconsin Synod was a member of the General Council, which indeed in its profession of the Lutheran doctrine was far more positive than the General Synod, but because of its unionistic practices offended the Lutherans belonging to the Wisconsin Synod. On the other side stood the Missouri Synod with its unequivocal acknowledgment of the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church and its outspoken testimony against those who did not seriously practice the Lutheran Confession. In the discussions regarding the Confessions young pastor Hoenecke participated actively and soon exerted a decisive influence. His influence contributed in a marked degree to the Wisconsin Synod’s severance of its connection with the General Council and also made itself strongly felt in 1868 in the discussion with the Missouri Synod which resulted in mutual recognition of the two bodies.”

231 Hoenecke discusses at length also Frank’s System der ehr. Gewissheit. “This detailed discussion is by no means prompted by the importance of this system. However, the work made quite a stir and gained influence. Accordingly, the interest of the Lutheran Church demands that we consider his work more closely.”

232 Thus the Leipzig Allgemeine Ev.-Luth. Kirchenzeitung, 1893, No. 2.

233 The Scriptural position was taken in the 25 canons of Orange, 529. See Mansi, VIII, 712 ff. I have had the 25 canons reprinted in Die Grunddifferenz, 1903, p. 34 ff. See also Zur Einigung, p. 4. [English: Conversion and Election, p. 5.]

234 The antagonism between Luther and the later Melanchthon and between Melanchthon and Chemnitz. See, in Vol. II, the section “The True Reason for Opposing Divine Monergism in Conversion.”

235 Monatshefte, 1872, p. 80, 87, 103. Zeitblaetter, 1911, p. 526. This doctrine, employing the “dissimilar conduct” of men as explanation for the fact why of two men hearing the Gospel the one comes to faith and the other does not, is the doctrine of the later Melanchthon, which the Formula of Concord so emphatically rejects. It is also the doctrine of modern Lutherans, like Dieckhoff and Luthardt, who imagine that the sola gratia must be stricken in order to preserve the Church from Calvinism.

236 Verhandlungen der 32. Versammlung der Synode von Wisconsin in Gemeinschaft mit der Synode von Minnesota in La Crosse, Wis., vom 8. bis zum 14. Juni 1882. See especially p. 34 f.

237 St. L. IX:831; XVIII: 1985; IX:831. It is a pity that the Lutheran Church in America “of strictly confessional trend” and the Church in Germany became estranged. The original unity of spirit between Walther and Franz Delitzsch is expressed beautifully by Delitzsch in his letter of condolence at Walther’s death. Lehre und Wehre, 1887, 289 f. In a like vein Delitzsch wrote the author of this dogmatics in 1887. That the two old friends in late years could not come to an agreement “in some matters” was due to the fact that Delitzsch under the pressure of “science” forsook his former position. As a “scientific theologian” he placed “science” as the determining principle between himself and Holy Scripture. He abandoned the inspiration of Scripture. That Delitzsch as a Christian clung to the satisfactio vicaria, as we, too, charitably assume, was due to a “felicitous inconsistency.” That the denial of the Inspiration, if consistency prevails, leads to denial also of the satisfactio vicaria, Delitzsch saw actually occurring even in his day (Hofmann, Frank), and since then has become manifest almost universally.

238 Lutheran and Missionary, July 13, 1865; also Lehre und Wehre, XI, 1865, p. 278.

239 The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, 1871, Preface, p. xiii. In many respects this is a classic dogmatical work. In it Krauth masterfully defends also the Lutheran doctrine of Christ’s person and of the Lord’s Supper and shows their Scripturalness over against the attacks of Shedd. Cp. the pertinent sections in this dogmatics.

240 a Summary of the Christian Faith, p. 216 f.

241 “Man’s will is able to decide for salvation through new powers bestowed by God. This is the subtle synergism which has infected nearly the whole of Evangelical Protestantism, and which is or has been taught in institutions bearing the name of our church.” (The Confessional Principle, 1911, p. 752.)

242 See F. Bente, American Lutheranism, p. 217 f.

243 A Summary of the Christian Faith, p. 284.

244 “But are not some of the most conservative defenders of traditional theories of inspiration also open to criticism? Yes, when they ignore or endeavor to conceal the human element in Scripture or, what is the same, raise the human factor to an equality with the divine, as when it is claimed that the Hebrew vowel points are inspired.” A Summary of the Christian Faith, p. 281.

245 In his introduction to J. A. W. Haas, Biblical Criticism, Jacobs writes: “A text from Genesis and one from John, one from the Psalms and one from the Romans, cannot stand upon the same footing. There are few theorists [1] who would assign the same aegree of inspiration to the statistics and rolls in Ezra or Chronicles as to those parts of the New Testament for whose reading the dying ask when all other earthly words have lost their interest. Even the distinction between the Petrine and the Pauline theology, which the Tuebingen School so greatly exaggerated, contains within it an element of truth, when the difference is found to be one of degree, but not one of kind.” Quoted in F. Bente, American Luth., II, 220 f.

246 “If the verbal theory of inspiration means that every word and letter are inspired, so that the writer was purely passive and performed a merely mechanical office, as ‘the pen of the Holy Ghost,’ this, we hold, is an assumption for which we have no warrant” (loc. cit.).

247 Krauth said: “I have been saddened beyond expression by the bitterness displayed toward the Missourians. So far as they have helped us to see the great principles involved in this disputation [on altar- and pulpit-fellowship with non-Lutherans, Chiliasm, and the lodges], they have been our benefactors, and although I know they have misunderstood some of us, that was perhaps inevitable. They are men of God, and their work has been of inestimable value.” Quoted in F. Bente, American Luth., II, 185, from A. Spaeth’s Dr. Charles Porterfield Krauth, II, 236.

248 In his presidential address before the Pittsburgh Synod in 1866 he declared: “There can be, there is, no true unity but in the faith…. The one token of this unity, that by which this internal thing is made visible, is the one expression of faith, one ‘form of sound words,’ used in simple earnestness, and meaning the same to all who employ it…. You may agree to differ; but when men become earnest, difference in faith will lead first to fervent pleadings for the truth, and, if these be hopelessly unheeded, will lead to separation. All kinds of beliefs and unbeliefs may exist under the plea of toleration.” Quoted in op. cit., II, 184.

249 Besides Jacobs’ book there are a number of larger and smaller dogmatical works in the English language. To name a few: Milton Valentine, Christian Theology, 1905-1907, 2 vols.; Revere F. Weidner, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, 2d ed., 1895; Andrew Voigt, 1916. All are more or less infected with the modern “scientific” theology, but Weidner and Voigt oppose its coarsest excrescences. The false witness borne against the old dogmaticians is, we presume, copied bona fide from famous modern theologians. Voigt says, for example, in his Introduction, XVIII: “Confessionalism does not mean that it is the office of dogmatics simply to reproduce and defend the accepted doctrine of the Church. This was the conception in the seventeenth century.” Whoever is familiar with the theologians of the seventeenth century knows that they take and prove the Christian doctrine directly from Scripture — for which other modern theologians acknowledge and fault them (“intellectualism,” etc.). Valentine’s dogmatics may serve as proof how effectually the theologians in the General Synod rebuffed not only the influence of the Missouri Synod, but also Dr. Krauth’s endeavors. Valentine espoused nearly all of the errors of modern theology together with the Arminian-Reformed ‘enthusiasm.’ He rejects the inspiration of Scripture and the substitutional punitive sufferings of Christ. He weakens the doctrine of original sin, rejects the “mere passive,” and adopts the human will as the third cause of conversion (free self-decision). Children cannot believe and are saved without faith. Heathen are saved “if they lived according to the light afforded them.” (II, 405 ff.)

We have in Dr. A. L. Graebner’s (d. 1904) Outlines of Doctrinal Theology, 1898, an English dogmatics which is entirely correct and Biblical in doctrine. These outlines are, as the author says in the preface, “a brief thetical compend of the outlines of Christian doctrine, consisting of concise definitions and an array of texts from which the various points of doctrine are derived as from their theological source, the written Word of God.” That no quotations from the Symbolical Books are added “must not be construed into a disparagement of the Lutheran standards or of any point of doctrine therein contained. With an emphatic refusal to apologize for having nowhere, from the first point in Bibliology to the last in Eschatology, progressed beyond the theology of our orthodox fathers, and with the fervent prayer that God would graciously keep him and his brethren in the faith from any such progress, this humble contribution toward the theological literature of our Church in America is dedicated to the service of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and commended to His divine blessing.”

250 At the time of Walther’s death, General Superintendent Ruperti wrote: “In Walther one of the great men of the Church of Christ has gone home, a man who was an epoch-making personality not only in the history of the Church in America, where he was the outstanding leader and gatherer of Lutherans, but whose activity has made itself felt in the Lutheran Church of all continents as a powerful incentive. The success of his activity is almost without parallel in the recent history of our Church.” Allgemeine Ev.-Luth. Kirchenzeitung, July 22, 1887.

251 The fathers of the Missouri Synod were surely in no hurry to break off intercourse with the Church in Germany. As they continually endeavored to come to doctrinal agreement with the various Lutheran synods of this country, so they repeatedly sought to come to an agreement with church circles in Germany and in other countries. We, on our part, have kept up the contact by carefully taking cognizance of events in the German Church, particularly also of their literary products. The many volumes of Lehre und Wehre and of the Lutheraner offer perhaps the richest mine of current church history covering the whole world obtainable today.

252 Kurtz, Kirchengeschichte fuer Studierende, 1890, II, 2, p. 262. R. E., 2d ed., IX, 85 f.; partial correction in R. E., 2d ed., XVIII, 687 ff.

253 Calvin in his Institutes (last edition by him, 1559) has the lucid external arrangement: I. The Knowledge of God the Creator. II. The Knowledge of God the Savior. III. The Manner of Receiving Christ’s Grace. IV. The External Means or Instruments.

254 Walther used to comment here: “O you humble Luther!”

255 Loci Theologici, Tubingae, 1601; 1603; 1606, and later editions.

256 Quoted in Walther’s Pastoraltheologie, p. 9.

Holy Scripture

(DE SCRIPTURA SACRA)