Preface

THE three volumes of my CHRISTLICHE DOGMATIK are now in print. An explanation is in order why the first volume was published last. It had been suggested that the volume containing the doctrines of God’s grace in Christ, of Christ’s person and work, and of justification be published in 1917, the fourth centennial of the Lutheran Reformation. It was only natural that Volume III, setting forth the results and consequences of justification, should appear next (1920).

More than half of the present volume is devoted to “The Nature and Character of Theology” and “Holy Scripture.” This has become necessary because modern Protestant theology has adopted unchristian views regarding the nature and contents of theology. And this again is simply the inevitable consequence when men deny that Holy Scripture is God’s own infallible Word. Modern theology has gone the way of Rome. In the Church of Rome, Christian theology has completely broken down, for there the sole authority of Scripture is denied and the subjective opinion of the Pope is made the real authority. Just so modern Protestant theology has abandoned the objective divine authority of Scripture and put in its place “Christian experience,” that is, the subjective views of “the theologizing subject,” of the theologian. This situation called for the comprehensive treatment given the matter in the first two sections. — In the doctrine of God the difference between the natural and the Christian knowledge of God had to be presented somewhat more fully, because modern theology, represented also by some Lutherans, has become dynamic Unitarianism. — Modern theology has adopted the Romanist-Zwinglian concept of a “guiltless sin.” This aberration made it necessary to dwell more extensively on several points of the doctrine of sin in the chapter on “Anthropology.”

Considerable space has been given to the charge, raised especially in German dogmatical treatises, that the Missouri Synod teaches a “repristination theology,” which must inevitably prove harmful to the Church. The claim is made that by identifying Scripture and the Word of God our theology will lead to an intellectualism which will stifle all true and genuine religion of the heart (“Herzenschristentum”). This matter does not properly belong to dogmatics. Nevertheless, I considered it necessary to refute the unwarranted charge and to remove any misgivings concerning the “repristination theology,” and have therefore set forth in some detail the religious life of a church body which is definitely committed to the “repristination theology.” I also presented the additional historical fact that also other church bodies explicitly adhere to this “repristination theology.” I refer to Dr. Hoenecke’s exhaustive Ev.-Luth. Dogmatik as proof that the doctrinal position of the Joint Synod of Wisconsin and Other States is exactly the same as that of the Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. This excursus also contains several quotations from a monograph by Franz Delitzsch, published in 1839 for the 300th anniversary of the Reformation of the city of Leipzig. The purpose of these quotations is to show that what God gave also to Germany a century ago has been perpetuated, further elucidated, and applied in practice by the “strictly confessional wing” of American Lutheranism. Let me here repeat a few statements of Delitzsch: “I confess without shame that in matters of faith I am 300 years behind our time, because I came to see, after wandering a long time in the mazes of error, that truth is one and indeed eternal, immutable, and that, since it is revealed by God, it is not in need of any sifting and improvement.” “I preach retrogression to you: Return to the Word of God, which you have forsaken.” “What I have voiced and sought to defend is nothing but the faith of our old Lutheran Church, which our forefathers confessed as their faith 300 years ago on Pentecost with fervent thanksgiving to God.” And Delitzsch was not an isolated case. The author of this dogmatics has, as student, as pastor, and as theological professor, read with great interest and true joy several smaller monographs of Ernst Sartorius. They are Die Religion ausserhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, 1822; Die Unwissenschaftlichkeit und innere Verwandtschaft des Rationalismus und Romanismus, 1825; Von dem religioesen Erkenntnisprinzip, 1826. Dogmatically these essays set forth the true nature of Christian theology even more clearly than Delitzsch. And modern German theology would do well to study these products of the “awakening” which Germany experienced a hundred years ago. It should not be deterred from this study by the fact that the writers of these essays themselves, under the pressure of an unscientific theological science, forsook the truth they had confessed.

Also in this volume I have endeavored to be entirely objective. Occasionally strong terms have been used, but they seemed to be demanded by the importance of the matter under discussion. We must state as emphatically as possible that it is neither Christian nor scientific for theologians to accord equal authority to the Scriptures and their own Ego (subjective experience) as the source of Christian doctrine. This statement, of course, does not deny the possibility that a theologian’s personal faith may be at variance with his published views. That I admit such a theological inconsistency is stated repeatedly also in this volume.

We American Lutherans of the “strictly confessional wing” do not have the slightest reason to exalt ourselves above others. We owe everything to God’s grace. He has placed us, for instance, in the most favorable religious and theological environment. We — the second and third generation — have received our theological training under the most favorable conditions imaginable. We studied the theology of the Early Church, the Reformation, and the dogmaticians on the basis of the sources; we also learned the method and findings of modern theology from the sources. At the same time our teachers constantly admonished us not to substitute any human authority — not even Luther or the Lutheran Confessions — for the authority of Scripture. In the graduate year we were exhorted: “Let none of you enter the ministry with doubts as to the Scripturalness of any doctrine contained in our Lutheran Symbols. If anyone is still in doubt, let him frankly discuss his scruples with his teachers.” When we submitted our first sermon in the first seminary year, all high-flown terminology and bombastic rhetoric were mercilessly culled out and eliminated; our professors impressed upon us that the usus didacticus of Scripture comes first; that our goal should be so to teach and to preach that through the proclamation of the Law in its full severity the carnally secure would be aroused out of their carnal security, and the terrified consciences would obtain the assurance of the grace of God and of salvation through the preaching of the full and free Gospel (satisfactio vicaria). Furthermore, we were constantly engaged in polemics against Rome, the “enthusiastic” [“schwaermerischen”] sects, disloyal Lutherans, Unitarians, and the antichristian lodges. As a result we were compelled to occupy ourselves continually and intensively with the Christian doctrine in our congregations as well as at pastoral conferences and synodical conventions. True, our church body is far, far from being perfect. We are not so blind as not to see our weaknesses and shortcomings. We have been and are encountering difficulties in establishing and maintaining correct practice in some congregations. We have even experienced secessions, which deeply humbled us. On the other hand, by God’s grace we are certain that the doctrine proclaimed among us is the Christian faith, the faith revealed in Scripture, the faith confessed in the Lutheran Symbols, and that this doctrine demands and must be granted exclusive recognition in the Church. From this viewpoint this CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS, too, desires to be judged in both its thetical and its antithetical statements.

Soli Deo Gloria!

F. PIEPER

St. Louis, Missouri, April, 1924