Foreword.
With the appearance of this volume, my Christian Dogmatics is now available in full printing. It has been publicly asked why the second and third volumes appeared first. The reason is that the wish was expressed that in the great jubilee year of 1917, the volume in which the doctrines of God's grace in Christ, of Christ's person and work, and of justification are presented should be printed first. The second volume was naturally followed by the third volume, in which the consequences of the Christian doctrine of justification are described.
In the present volume, the first two chapters, "The Nature and Concept of Theology" and "The Holy Scriptures," occupy more than half of the space. This is explained by the fact that in modern Protestant theology un-Christian conceptions of the nature and concept of theology have become established. But this is only the necessary consequence of the apostasy from the Christian truth that the Holy Scriptures are God's own infallible Word. As we have before us in the Roman Church a complete collapse of Christian theology in principle, because there the subjective view of the Pope is the all-determining power, so now we have the same state of affairs in modern Protestant theology, because the latter has abandoned the objective divine authority of Holy Scriptures and has taken refuge in the "Christian experience," that is, in the subjective view of "the theologizing subject." This explains, as said, the detailed treatment of the
both of the first two chapters. In the doctrine of God, the difference between the natural and the Christian knowledge of God had to be explained in more detail, because modern theology, even in circles calling themselves Lutheran, has become dynamic-Unitarian. In the doctrine of man, the doctrine of sin required longer expositions at several points, because modern theology has come to the concept of "guiltless sin" from its ego standpoint in a Roman-Zwinglian manner. In order to remain in the necessary contact with the present, it was therefore necessary to emphasize certain parts in this volume.
On the other hand, a special explanation or apology is needed, why a longer explanation is inserted on p. 182 ff. which actually does not belong in a dogmatic. It is about the accusation, raised especially from Germany also in dogmatic writings, that within the Missouri Synod a "Repristination Theology" is cultivated, which must be regarded as an evil in the Christian Church. Our theology, it is claimed, as a result of the "identification" of Scripture and the Word of God, leads to an "intellectualism" in which living "heart Christianity" cannot properly arise. Following this criticism, and in order to possibly remove the fear of "Repristination Theology", I had to describe at length how things are in our church fellowship, which is devoted to "Repristination Theology". In order to remain historically correct, I could not conceal the further fact that the theology deplored at the Missouri Synod is cultivated with clear consciousness in other church fellowships as well. I refer to Dr. Hönecke's very detailed Ev.-Luth. Dogmatik, from which it is clear that the doctrinal position of the Synod of Wisconsin and others completely coincides with the doctrinal position of the Missouri Synod. In this excursus are further found
(p. 199 ff.) some quotations from a writing published by Franz Delitzsch in 1839 for the tercentenary of the Reformation in the city of Leipzig. The purpose of these quotations is to prove that the American Lutheran Church of "strict confessional trend" has preserved, brought to clear exposition and practically applied what God gave now almost a hundred years ago also in Germany. Delitzsch says — to take some of his sentences over into this preface —: "I confess, without being ashamed, that in matters of faith I am 300 years behind, because I have recognized after long insanity that the truth is only one, and that an eternal, unchangeable one, and, because revealed by God, in need of no sifting and improvement." "I preach backwardness to you, namely, to the Word of God, from which you have fallen." "What I have pronounced and sought to defend is nothing other than the faith of the Old Lutheran Church, to which our forefathers confessed 300 years ago on the holy feast of Pentecost with fervent prayer of thanksgiving." And Delitzsch did not stand alone. The author of this dogmatics had already read some smaller writings of Ernst Sartorius as a student, later as a pastor and also still as a teacher of theology with great interest and true joy of heart. These are writings Religion ausserhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft ["Religion outside the limits of mere reason"] (1822), Die Unwissenschaftlichkeit und innere Verwandtschaft des Rationalismus und Romanismus] ["The unscientificness and inner affinity of rationalism and Romanism"] (1825), Von dem religiösen Erkenntnisprinzip ["Of the religious principle of knowledge"] (1826). In these writings, the right kind of Christian theology is dogmatically pointed out even more clearly than in Delitzsch. Modern German theology should not be deterred from reading these and other writings from Germany's revival period of a hundred years ago by the fact that the authors of them, under the pressure of an unscientific
theological science, later themselves deviated from the truth testified to.
In the present volume, too, I have endeavored to give a factual account. Where sharp expressions have been used in some places, they seemed to be demanded by the importance of the matter under discussion. It was necessary to make it clear that a theology which seeks to draw and standardize Christian doctrine not from the Holy Scriptures alone, but from the Ego of the theologizing individual, is neither Christian nor scientific, but the opposite of both. That I know a theological inconsistency, according to which there is the possibility that someone believes differently in his heart and before God than he writes in his writings, is also repeatedly expressed in this volume.
We American Lutherans of "strictly confessional trend" have not the slightest cause to exalt ourselves above others. We would certainly be swimming in the same perverse stream if God's grace had not placed us in quite different church relationships. We — the second and third generation — have been trained theologically under the most favorable relationships imaginable. We were acquainted not only with the theology of the ancient church, the Reformation and the dogmatists, but also with the nature and results of modern theology. In addition, our teachers continued to admonish us not to substitute any human authority, not even the authority of Luther and the symbolic books, for the divine authority of Scripture. The admonition in the last year of study was: "Let none of you enter the ministry who still has doubts about the Scriptural validity of any doctrine of the Lutheran symbols. If anyone still has doubts, talk frankly with any of his teachers." Even from the very first sermon of
in the first year of study, all theological phrases and rhetoric that sounded learned were ruthlessly eliminated and cut away on the grounds that the usus didacticus of the Holy Scriptures stood in the first place. It is important to teach and preach in such a way that, as far as the pastor is concerned, through the unabridged sermon of the Law the secure are frightened out of their carnal security and the frightened consciences are assured of God's grace and salvation through the unvarnished gospel (satisfactio vicaria). The fact that we had enemies all around us at all times, from Rome, the enthusiastic sects and unfaithful Lutherans down to the Unitarians and the anti-Christian lodges, had to serve us best. This struggle forced us to continue our intensive study of Christian doctrines in the individual congregations, in the pastoral conferences and in the Synod conventions. Admittedly, we would have to be blind if we did not also see the weaknesses that have always been inherent in our church fellowship. We have had and still have difficulties in carrying out or maintaining the right practice in individual congregations. We have also experienced secessions that have humbled us deeply. On the other hand, we are certain by God's grace that the doctrine that is in force among us is the Christian doctrine revealed in Scripture and testified to in the Lutheran Confessions, and therefore must lay claim to sole authority. From this point of view, this Christian Dogmatics also wants to be judged in its thetical as well as in its antithetical explanations.
St. Louis, Mo. in April 1924.
F. Pieper.