_3_The Number of Religions in the World

How many essentially different religions are there in the world? The preceding chapter has already shown that there are not a thousand (Meyer, Grosses Konversationslexikon, 6th ed., XVI, 784), not even four,12 but only two essentially different religions: the religion of the Law, that is, the endeavor to reconcile God through man’s own works, and the religion of the Gospel, that is, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, belief wrought through the Gospel by the Holy Ghost that we have a gracious God through the reconciliation already effected by Christ, and not because of our own works ().

Scripture teaches throughout that there are but two essentially different religions. This is apparent from the divine mission of the Christian religion to displace all other religions. The commission given the Church: “” (Matt. 28:19), is certainly universal 13 and therefore exclusive. It denies the right of existence to all other religions because only the Christian religion has saving power. All others leave man in darkness and in the power of Satan. Christianity is designed as the world religion, for its charter reads: “to open their” [Jews and Gentiles] “eyes and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me,” namely, in Christ (Acts 26:18).14

Men do not want to put Christianity and all other religions into diametrical opposition, do not want religions divided into essentially different classes. And so they are searching, particularly in these modern days, for a “general concept of religion,” a definition of religion so wide and all-embracing that it expresses the nature both of the heathen religions and of the Christian religion and thus puts Christianity and the non-Christian religions into one genus, one class. But when these definitions which are supposed to cover both Christianity and paganism are closely examined, it is clear that men are simply using a common name to designate entirely different things. They are playing with mere “Verbaldefinitionen” (Karl Hase’s phrase),15 which make heterogeneous religions appear homogeneous by the simple expedient of ignoring the essence of the Christian religion. Those who accept the basic truth of Christianity, the reconciliation of the world with God through Christ’s satisfactio vicaria, have no use for such “verbal definitions.”

Let us examine some of them. Some propose to define “religion in general” as “the personal relation of man to God.” This definition is widely accepted in our day. Macpherson: “The common element in all religions is the recognition of a relation between men and God.”16 Luthardt offers the same definition: “Though the designations of what we call religion may be different, all of them express a relation to the deity of a more or less internal and personal nature. And this, I think, we may call the general concept of religion.” (Glaubenslehre, 1898, p. 34.) But this does not make the two essentially different religions one. As soon as we get down to the concrete facts behind this abstract concept “relation,” as soon as we determine the actual relation of men to God and the nature of this relation, we see at once that this “relation” is twofold.

In the case of all men who seek to placate God by their own efforts we find that their personal relation to God is one of fear, of hopelessness and despair, resulting from an evil conscience, from the consciousness of God’s wrath. The reason for this unhappy relation is that the attempt to reconcile God through works is doomed to failure; for “by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in His sight” (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16). No man has ever eased his evil conscience through his works; Scripture states that all Gentiles without exception “have no hope” and are “without God in the world,” Eph. 2:12. (“At that time” — as long as men are Gentiles, unbelievers, they are under God’s wrath.) And their many sacrifices did not in the least alter their “personal relation to God,” for these sacrifices were not offered to God, but to devils (1 Cor. 10:20). In spite of all his religious endeavors the heathen’s personal relation to God is and remains a relation of fear and despair. — This applies, of course, also to those within visible Christendom who seek to establish good relations with God through their own works. Gal. 3:10 applies to them no less than to the heathen: “As many as are of the works of the Law () are under the curse.”

The Christians’ “personal relation to God,” however, is of an entirely different nature. Through faith in the reconciliation effected by Christ they know God as their dear Father, have a good conscience, or the assurance of grace, and enjoy the hope of eternal life, which God has promised all believers in Christ. Voicing his and the Christians’ experience, the Apostle Paul thus describes the status of the Christians: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ … and rejoice in hope of the glory of God…. We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Rom. 5:1, 2, 11.) — Even though “religion in general” is defined as “the personal relation of man to God,” the fact remains that the Christian religion and the religion of the heathen differ essentially.

This applies also to the popular formula that “religion in general” is “the mode and manner of worshiping God” (ratio Deum colendi sive Deo serviendi). For the nature and character of Christian worship differs radically from that of the worship practiced in all other religions. Christians worship God as the God who has bestowed His grace upon them not on account of the works of the Law, but for the sake of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction. They present their good works to God not as a ransom to pay for their sins, but as a thankoffering for the redemption that Christ has effected. Thus Paul says of himself: “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). Only such a worship and service of God is God-pleasing and fitting. Rom. 12:1: “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” To non-Christians, however, the worship and service of God is the performance of a “religious duty,” dictated by the fear of God’s wrath and aimed at winning God’s favor by keeping the Law. But this modus Deum colendi atque Deo serviendi, far from pleasing God, only evokes God’s wrath. “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse” (Gal. 3:10).

Others again propose as the common denominator of all religions the striving of man to bring life to its highest fulfillment. Kirn actually declares: “What is common to all religions is the striving of man to establish, broaden, and perfect his own personality and the human relationships with the aid of a higher, superhuman power.”17 But it is only the non-Christian religions that ask men to save and better themselves by their own striving and efforts. Because of the opinio legis inherent in man, the religion of all unbelievers is the religion of works. Moreover, there is in no man the “striving” after the way to life which the Christian religion offers, salvation through faith in Christ, crucified for the sins of the world. The way of grace is unknown to man. “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9). And when the religion of grace is preached to man, it is to him “a stumbling block and foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23). He does not strive for it but against it. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him” (1 Cor. 2:14).

There are modern theologians who acknowledge that a general definition of religion which would put the non-Christian religions and the Christian religion into one class is not found in Holy Scripture. Thus Nitzsch-Stephan: “The Old Testament does not have a general definition of religion which would also cover paganism.” “The New Testament, too, does not have such a general definition.”18

The “older theologians,” therefore, must not be faulted, but rather commended for maintaining that essentially there are but two different religions, that the Christian religion is in a class by itself, and that all non-Christian religions belong in the class of “falsae religiones” from which men need to be delivered through the Christian religion. The same classification is found throughout Luther’s writings. He says: “Thus the Prophet warns against the other religions which can do nothing but wear down both body and soul, and all to no avail; and the stricter they are, the more do they fill men with fear and grief and drive them to despair. And just as the woman suffering from an issue of blood only grew worse under the treatment of the doctors (Mark 5:26), so also these undertakings make the evil worse, and the hearts of men are distressed more and more. We have experienced it under the Pope, where the souls found no peace through the countless satisfactions, prayers, fasts, masses, pilgrimages, but were tortured the more. The Word alone gives true consolation, as Scripture says: Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace’ (Rom. 5:1). Therefore the true and only religion and the true and only worship is this, that one believes the forgiveness of sins, which God gives graciously and freely, without subsequent or previous good works, from pure mercy, just as He freely gives the light of the sun and all other good things. Believing in this good God, who bestows His blessings graciously and freely, is the true religion and the true righteousness.” (St. L. VI:540.) 19

In this connection the objection is raised that the old theologians, including Luther, were not in a position to classify the religions correctly; if they had been acquainted with the psychology of religion, the history of religion, and the philosophy of religion — sciences which have received the proper attention only in recent times — they would not have made the distinction between true and false religions. The findings of these sciences, we are told, establish the homogeneity of the religions of the world. The examination of these “findings,” however, will show that they are contrary to the facts.

What has modern psychology of religion found? It is asserted very emphatically that “the psychological phenomena” appearing in both non-Christians and Christians are “of the same kind”; and that it was because the older theologians were not cognizant of these phenomena that they found it impossible to put the Christian religion and the non-Christian religions into one genus.20 But this asserted similarity and sameness immediately disappears when the two kinds of “psychological phenomena” are compared; what appears is a radical dissimilarity and absolute contrariety. The “psychological phenomena” in the non-Christian soul are these: the feeling of guilt, or the evil conscience, the fear of punishment and with it the inner flight from God, the endeavor to avert punishment through the performance of good works, and, owing to the futility of this endeavor, the fear of death (Heb. 2:15), the state of hopelessness and despair, Eph. 2:12: “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” 21 The psychology of the Christian, however, is the very opposite. The Christian has a good conscience and peace with God through faith in the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 5:1); there is no inner flight from God, but confident access to God (Rom. 5:2); no terror of death and hopelessness, but triumph over death (1 Cor. 15:55; Phil. 1:23); and rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God (Rom. 5:2). Thus the similarity of these two kinds of psychological phenomena dwindles to the fact that the Christians and the non-Christians are alike inasmuch as both have a human soul, and the psychological phenomena are alike inasmuch as both are psychological phenomena. They are alike only formally, in no sense materially. As to their motives, purpose, and nature, they are not alike, but absolutely disparate.

The student of the psychology of religion must also take note of the fact that, as Christ Himself tells us, the souls of the non-Christians are the dwelling place and workshop of the “strong man armed,” who “keepeth his palace” so that “his goods are in peace” (Luke 11:21), while the souls of the Christians are inhabited, ruled, and led by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 3:16: “Know ye not, etc.”; Rom. 8:11-14: “But if the Spirit of Him, etc.”). But it is impossible that the “psychological phenomena” produced by the Prince of this world should be of the same kind as those produced by the Holy Spirit. St. Paul calls upon the former Gentiles and Jews to bear witness to this when he asks them to contrast their present psychological experiences with the former (Eph. 2:2-3: “walked … according to, etc.”; 1 Cor. 12:2: “Ye know that ye were Gentiles, etc.”; Eph. 2:11-12: “Wherefore remember, etc.”). — The examination of the “psychological phenomena” thus demonstrates that the Christian and the non-Christian religions, far from being of one kind, differ essentially.

A critical analysis of the Historico-Religious School brings us to the same conclusion. When we examine the “religious phenomena” in the non-Christian religions and compare them with those of the Christian religion, we find again that the non-Christian religions — the monotheistic religions no less than the polytheistic, animistic, and other forms of religion — seek to establish good relations with the deity by way of works, while the essence of the Christian religion consists in the exact opposite, in the , by faith, not of works (Rom. 3:28; Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8). The truly scientific historical study of religions leads to the conclusion Monier-Williams reached as the result of his comparative study of religion. He sets forth the essential difference between the Christian and the non-Christian religions in these striking words: “In the discharge of my duties for forty years as professor of Sanskrit in the University of Oxford, I have devoted as much time as any man living to the study of the Sacred Books of the East, and I have found the one keynote, the one diapason, so to speak, of all these so-called sacred books, whether it be the Veda of the Brahmans, the Puranas of Siva and Vishnu, the Koran of the Mohammedans, the Zend-Avesta of the Parsees, the Tripitaka of the Buddhists — the one refrain through all — salvation by works. They all say that salvation must be purchased, must be bought with a price, and that the sole price, the sole purchase money, must be our own works and deservings. Our own holy Bible, our sacred Book of the East, is from beginning to end a protest against this doctrine. Good works are, indeed, enjoined upon us in that sacred Book of the East far more strongly than in any other sacred book of the East; but they are only the outcome of a grateful heart— they are only a thankoffering, the fruits of our faith. They are never the ransom money of the true disciples of Christ. Let us not shut our eyes to what is excellent and true and of good report in these sacred books, but let us teach Hindus, Buddhists, Mohammedans, that there is only one sacred Book of the East that can be their mainstay in that awful hour when they pass all alone into the unseen world. It is the sacred Book which contains that faithful saying, worthy to be received of all men, women, and children, and not merely of us Christians — that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”22

Finally, can the homogeneity of the religions in the world be established on the basis of the philosophy of religion? Certainly not, for the religion espoused by the philosophers is the very opposite of the Christian religion; it is the religion of works. — Here we encounter the difficulty that the advocates of a philosophical conception of religion are by no means agreed as to what this term means and covers. But a very clear hint as to its meaning is given by those religious philosophers who say that the philosophical conception of religion must be kept “clean and objective,” that is to say, in determining “the essence of religion” the teaching of Scripture must be entirely disregarded and its claim to be the Word of God and the source and norm of the Christian religion ruled out. The religious philosophers insist that any definition of religion must be in accord with “the human idea” of religion. They go so far as to say — and from their standpoint they are compelled to say — that there can be no philosophy of religion “in the strict sense” until the human mind has freed itself from all “religious prejudices” and is “unfettered by dogmatism and faith in an external authority,” has outgrown the idea that religious knowledge comes to man in a miraculous way through divine revelation, and has rid itself of the superstition that the religious dogmas are something sacred, given from above, fixed and inviolable. In a word, the prerequisite of a “genuine,” “clean and objective” philosophy of religion is the repudiation of the divine authority of Holy Scripture.

True, such a purely human conception of religion is then attained. But at what a price! It is going to be the pagan conception of religion, the religion, as Max Mueller puts it, of “salvation by works.” That is inevitable. Let us bear in mind that the Christian religion, the truth that mankind is reconciled to God through the satisfactio vicaria of Christ and that man therefore has a gracious God by faith in Christ without the deeds of the Law, is terra incognita to all men, including the philosophers. This truth, the essence of the Christian religion, has never “entered into the heart of man” (1 Cor. 2:9). All men, including the philosophers, know something about the Law of God. “The work of the Law” is written also in the hearts of the philosophers (Rom. 2:15). But that is the limit of their innate religious knowledge. It follows that their religious thoughts are confined within the limits of the Law and the works of man. In his dying hour Socrates directed that a cock be sacrificed to Aesculapius, and Kant, whom some consider to be the first genuine philosopher of religion, made morality, not faith in Christ’s reconciliation, the essential thing in religion.23 Luther saw through this philosophy of religion and disposed of it thus: “From this inherent knowledge originated all writings of the saner philosophers, of Aesop, Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon, Cicero, and Cato…. If, however, you seek for peace of conscience and for certain hope of eternal life, such philosophers are like the raven which wanders around the ark, finding no peace outside, but not looking for it within (Gen. 8:7). Paul says of the Jews, ‘Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law’ (Rom. 9:31). The reason for this lies in the fact that the Law is like the raven; it is either the ministry of death and sin, or it produces hypocrites.” (St. L. 1:621.) See also VI: 102 ff., on Is. 9:2. In short, any conception of religion which springs from the philosopher’s “pure, objective” knowledge of religion and conforms to the “human idea” of religion is sure to by-pass the Christian religion. It will not include the Christian religion but will be diametrically opposed to it. — We repeat: There are but two religions: the religion of works, which the philosophy of religion accepts as the true religion, and the religion of revelation, which the religious philosopher rejects as false.

In passing we should like to make a few remarks concerning those religious philosophers who do not indeed permit philosophy to replace the revelation of Scripture as the source of religious knowledge but still give it an important place in theology. They admit that the Christian religion transcends all human ideas of religion. But they also hold that the truths of the Christian religion, first revealed in Scripture, can also be demonstrated as true by rational processes, so that they are no longer merely believed, but also intellectually comprehended, and accepted not merely on the authority of Scripture but also on the authority of reason. That is what Anselm, “the father of Scholasticism,” meant when he declared: “Credo, ut intelligam (I believe in order to understand). Anselm, on the one hand, inveighs against the “modern dialecticians” (e. g., Abelard), who place knowledge before faith and consequently reject, a priori, what they cannot comprehend (intelligere). On the other hand, he demands that the Christian progress (proficere) from faith to knowledge. “The Christian should progress through faith to understanding and not through understanding to faith. He must not refuse to believe because he does not comprehend the matter. But when he is able to reach understanding, he is delighted.” 24 The “scientific theologians” of our day take a similar position. According to them it is the business of theology to elevate faith to knowledge, to satisfy the “intellectual needs” of the Christian, or, in other words, to establish the Christian religion as the “absolute” truth, to be perceived as such independently of its revelation in Scripture.25 This move on the part of the scientific theologians to “aggrandize” faith is in reality a form of self-aggrandizement. For at the bottom of it lies the notion that the professional “theologian,” in contradistinction to other Christians, possesses already in this life a knowledge of the Christian religion which exceeds mere faith in God’s revelation in the Word.

Christ does not approve of such notions. He condemns them as false when He declares that all religious truth is mediated solely by faith in His Word (John 8:31: “If ye continue in My Word”). St. Paul’s judgment of the matter is that anyone, particularly a teacher of the Church, is a conceited ignoramus () because he does not consent to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:3 f.). And the result of the theology which would elevate faith to knowledge is, as our old Lutheran theologians drastically express it, a monstrosity, a mixtum compositum of theology and philosophy, like unto “the biform race of the Centaurs.” (Quenstedt, I, 57.) Applying this theological method, Anselm denied that Christ’s fulfillment of the Law, the obedientia activa, was of a vicarious nature (see “Theories of Atonement”), and later on Abelard eliminated the satisfactio vicaria entirely.26 And it is notorious that among modern theologians the attempt to convert faith into knowledge has resulted in a quite general denial of the satisfactio vicaria and of the sole authority of Scripture. This matter will receive further consideration in several of the following sections, particularly in the chapter “Theology and Science.”