3. The number of religions in the world.
If we ask about the number of essentially different religions, it is already clear from the above explanation that there are not a thousand,19) nor four,20) but only two essentially different religions in the world: the religion of the Law, that is, the effort to reconcile with God by way of one's own human works, and the religion of the Gospel,
17) Gal. 2:16. The Apology (M. 188, 19 [Trigl. 287, 19 🔗]): Fide consequimur remissionem peccatorum propter Christ, non propter nostra opera praecedentia aut sequentia.
18) Gal. 5:4: Κατηργήΰητε από τον Χρίστον (you are — with regard to your relationship to Christ — turned away, loose from Christ, have no fellowship with him; cf. Cremer sub καταργεΤν), οΐτινες εν νόμφ δικαιονσ&ε (you who stand in the opinion that you are justified by the law), της χάριτος εξεπέσατε. Correct Meyer e. St.: "Justification by the law and justification for Christ's sake are namely opposita (works — faith), so that the one excludes the other." Luther therefore does not exaggerate when he says in the Large Catechism (M. 458, 56 [Trigl. 693, 56 🔗]): "All have thrown themselves out and separated [from the Christian church] who do not seek and earn holiness through the gospel and forgiveness of sin, but through their works."
19) For example, Meyer, Großes Konversationslexikon 6, XVI, 784.
20) The pagan, Jewish, Mohammedan and Christian religions. This enumeration is also found now and then in Lutheran catechisms, in that the essential content of the religions mentioned is not considered as well as their historical appearance in the world. But this is also historically not correct in so far as the Christian religion came into existence with the promise of the female seed as the redemption of mankind.
9 > The nature and Concept of Theology. [English ed. 10]
that is, the faith wrought by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that we have a gracious God through the reconciliation made through Christ, without works of our own (χωρίς έργων νόμον).
The duality of the religions, seen in their essential nature, is clearly taught throughout the Scriptures, as will be explained in more detail below. The duality is already evident from the fact that the Christian religion has the task of superseding all other religions. The missionary command addressed to the Christian church is of a thoroughly universal nature: μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη,21) and therefore denies the right to exist not merely to some, but to all other religions, with the added reason that all religions, with the exception of the Christian, are practically worthless, namely, that they leave men in darkness and in Satan's power. It is said in the purpose statement of Christianity as a world religion: "to open their eyes, that they (Jews and heathen) may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, to receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance with them that are sanctified, through faith that is in me," namely Christ (πίστει τῇ εἰς ἐμέ, scil, είς Χριστόν).22)
21) Matt. 28:19. So also abundantly already in the prophecies of the Old Testament. Ps. 2:8: "I will give you the heathen for an inheritance, and the end of the world for a possession." Gen. 49:10; Ps. 72:8 etc. Is. 49:6 (Christ the "light of the heathen" and "God's salvation" until the end of the world).
22) Acts 26:18. Cf. Luther's powerful exposition on Is. 9:2 f., that all intellectual and moral aspirations of the heathen and the unbelieving Jews burden the men in desolate darkness. St. L. VI, 106 ff. Irrig Lechler-Schäffer on Acts 26:18 in Lange's commentary: "The purpose of his (the apostle Paul's) mission is stated in such a manner that it can be understood only as referring to Gentiles." In contrast, Meyer is correct: Είς ονς is not to be referred merely to τών εθνών, but from τον λαον και τών εθνών together, "which is demanded by the pragmatic relationship v. 19. 20." V. 20 Paul himself reports how he understood Christ's command, namely, that he immediately preached repentance and conversion to God to Jews and heathens. Of course, not only the conversion from darkness to light, but also the conversion from the power of Satan to God refers equally to the heathen and the unbelieving Jews. Here again Meyer has at first the right relation to both classes. But when, with respect to the conversion "from the power of Satan to God," he adds, limitingly, that it "takes into account with predominant relation the heathen, who are ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, Eph. 2:12, under the power of Satan, the αρκών τον
10 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 10-11]
In order to eliminate this diametrical contrast between Christianity and all other religions and thus the duality of the essentially different religions, one searches especially in recent times for a "general concept of religion". By this, as has already been said, one understands a concept of religion that is so broad and comprehensive that it expresses the essence not only of the pagan religions but also of the Christian religions, thus including the non-Christian religions and the Christian religion under one genus. But a closer examination of the definitions of religion, in which one finds expressed a general concept of religion encompassing Christianity and paganism, lets us see clearly that one uses only one common expression, while the thing denoted remains completely different, as long as one holds fast the basic fact of Christianity, namely the reconciliation of the world through Christ's satisfactio vicaria. Karl Hase has rightly reminded us of "verbal definitions" of religion, in which the essence of the Christian religion is overlooked.23).
This is to be illustrated by some examples. We do not get beyond the duality of the religions, if we define "religion in general" as the "personal relationship of man to God". This definition is at present quite generally accepted. Thus Macpherson says, "The common element in all religions is the recognition of a relation between men and God."24) Likewise Luthardt: "However different the designations for what we call religion may be, in all of them a relationship to the Godhead, albeit a more or less inward and personal one, is expressed. And this we may well call the general concept of religion." 25) But "relationship" is a mere abstraction. As soon as we become concrete, that is, as soon as we examine the actual or historical relationship of men to God according to its quality, we are immediately confronted with the fact that the "relationship" is twofold. In all people who want to reconcile God through their own actions,
κόσμου τούτου, Eph. 2:2", the "with predominant relation" could be omitted, since Paul refers what he says about the heathen in Eph. 2:1. 2, v. 3 and 4 explicitly also to the Jews.
23) Hutterus redivivus 10, p. 11.
24) Christian Dogmatics; Edinburgh 1898, p. 10.
25) Glaubenslehre; 1898, p. 34.
11 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 11-12]
we encounter the personal relationship of evil conscience before God or, what is the same, the sensation of divine wrath and thus also the relationship of hopelessness. The reason for this is that those men who seek to reconcile God by their own actions strive in vain; for, "By the works of the law no flesh is justified before God."26) With this, experience is also true. The Scripture records in Eph. 2:12, not merely of some, but of all the heathen without distinction, that "in those days," when they were heathen, they had no hope, and were without God in the world, έλπίδα μη εχοντες καί άθεοι έν τω κόσμφ. Nor did their abundantly offered sacrifices change their "Personal Relationship with God" in the least, because their sacrifices were not offered to God, but to demons, a θύει τά έ'θνη, δαιμονίοις θύει καί ον θεφ,27) The personal relationship of the heathen, then, in all religious endeavors, is and remains a relationship of evil conscience and hopelessness. The same is true, of course, of all those who, within external Christianity, seek to regulate their relationship with God in the way of their own works. Of them also it is true, "They that deal in the works of the law (οι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) are under the curse."28) With Christians, on the other hand, through faith in the reconciliation wrought by Christ, the "personal relationship with God" is the relationship of good conscience or certainty of grace, and thus also the personal relationship of the hope of eternal life, which God has promised to give to all believers in Christ. This status quo among Christians is reported experientially by the Apostle Paul in the words, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ… and boast of the future glory which God is to give," and, "We also boast of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation."29) So it remains the duality of essentially different religions, even if we also define "religion in general" as "the personal relationship of man to God".
The same is true of the much-used formula according to which "religion in general" is defined as the way of
26) Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16.<w:t xml:space="preserve">27) 1 Cor. 10:20.
28) Gal. 3:10.<w:t xml:space="preserve"> 29) Rom. 5:1, 2, 11.
12 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 12-13]
of worshipping God (ratio Deum colendi sive Deo serviendi). As soon as we begin to examine the actual ways of worshipping God for their essence, their essential difference immediately becomes apparent. Christians worship God as the God who is gracious to them without the works of the law for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, and to whom they therefore offer their works not as a ransom for their sins but as a thank-offering for their redemption, which was accomplished through Christ. As Paul says of himself, "What I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."30) And this alone is worship pleasing to God and reasonable.31) All non-Christians, on the other hand, because they still have an evil conscience, think they must direct their religious endeavors, insofar as they still exist, to reconciling God by their own doing. And this modus Deum colendi atque Deo serviendi pleases God so little that it is rather under God's curse. "For those who deal with the works of the law are under the curse," Gal. 3:10.
The striving to secure life with the help of a higher power has also been described as common to all religions. Kirn, for example, thinks he can say: "What we find in all religions is the striving for securing, supplementing and perfected personal and fellowship life with the help of a higher, superhuman power."32) But this "striving" to secure one's life by one's own doing fits only to the non-Christian religions, because the work religion, the opinio legis, is innate to all non-Christians.. But as for the Christian religion, which consists in faith in Christ crucified for the sins of the world, it is not "aspired to" by any man. It has never entered a man's heart,33) and when it comes to him in the word of preaching, it is judged by him, as long as he is a natural man, to be an offence and folly, not to be striven for, but to be rejected.34) Even newer theologians admit that a general concept of religion, which as genus also includes the non-Christian religions, is not found in the Holy Scriptures. Thus Nitzsch-Stephan states:35) "In the Old Testament a general concept of
30) Gal. 2:20.<w:t>31) Rom. 12:1.
32) Grundriß 3, p. 10. 33) 1 Cor. 2:9.
34) 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:14.<w:t xml:space="preserve">35) Ev. Dogmatik, 1912, p. 112.
13 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 13-14]
religion, which could also apply to paganism,... is not given." "The New Testament likewise lacks such a fixed general concept."
The "older theologians" are therefore not to be blamed, but to be praised, if they held on to the duality of the essentially different religions by placing the Christian religion in a class of its own and bringing all non-Christian religions under the rubric "falsae religiones", from which men are to be redempted by the Christian religion.36) Likewise in innumerable places Luther. He remarks on Is. 44:17: "Thus the prophet admonishes against other religions, which do nothing but wear out body and soul at the same time in vain, and the stricter they are, the more they make men fearful, distressed and bring them to despair. And just as the woman who suffered from the flow of blood only became worse with her illness because of the treatment of the physicians, Mark. 5:26, so also through such actions the evil becomes worse and the hearts are made more and more restless, as we experienced under the pope, when the souls, after countless satisfactions, prayers, fasts, masses, pilgrimages, were not calmed but tormented more severely. But the Word alone truly comforts, according to the passage: ‘If we have been justified through faith, we have peace’ Rom. 5:1. Therefore the true and only religion and worship is this, that we believe the forgiveness of sins, which God gives by grace and freely, without works following or preceding, out of pure mercy, as he makes the sun to shine and gives all other good things that we enjoy. If one thus believes this benevolent God, who benefits by grace and freely, this is true religion and true righteousness." Of more recent Lutheran theologians, Moritz von Engelhardt has also emphatically pointed out that there are only two essentially different religions in the world.37)
But at this point it was and is objected that the old theologians and also Luther still lacked
36) Quenstedt, I, 28: Religionis vox sumitur vel improprie et abusive vel proprie. Improprie et abusive accipitur pro religione falsa, v. g. ethnica, Turcica, Iudaica, quo sensu agit Calixtus in Apparatu Theologico de diversis mundi religionibus, cum tamen una tantum sit vera religio, nempe Christiana. [Google]
37) RE. 2 XVII, 773.
14 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 14]
the necessary psychological, historical and philosophical consideration of the religions for the correct classification of the religions. These branches of knowledge had been devoted the due attention only in more recent time. But here, too, there is a self-deception. Even by means of the psychology of religion, the history of religion and the philosophy of religion we do not get beyond the dual number of the essentially different religions.
As far as the psychological consideration of the religions is concerned, the "similarity" of the "psychological phenomena" in non-Christians and Christians has been pointed out with great energy. Because the older theologians had overlooked this sameness, it was not possible for them to bring the Christian religion under one genus with the non-Christian ones.38) But the claimed similarity of psychological phenomena in Christians and non-Christians disappears immediately as soon as we examine comparatively. The similarity is replaced by the diametrical contrast. In the non-Christian soul we find the following psychological phenomena: the consciousness of guilt or the evil conscience, the fear of punishment and thus the inner flight from God, the striving to avert punishment by one's own works, and, because the striving does not lead to the desired goal, the state of fear of death and hopelessness.39) In the Christian soul we find the opposite states and movements: the good conscience through faith in the reconciliation that has come about through Christ, 40) not inward flight from God, but joyful access to God, 41) not fear of death and hopelessness, but triumph over death42) and the certain hope of eternal life.43) Thus the "sameness" of psychological states and phenomena is reduced
38) For example, Kirn, Grundriß 3, p. 9.
39) Eph. 2:12; Hebr. 2:15. Harleß rightly refers the exceptions to Eph. 2:12, which Zwingli, Bucer and others assumed with regard to individual heathens, to the realm of "dreams". Luther against Zwingli's salvation of the heathen heroes Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, etc. St. L. XX, 1767. The self-confessions of the heathen about their hopelessness in Luthardt, Apol. Vortr. I, 2, note 11.
40) Rom. 5:1: Ειρήνην εχομεν προς τον θεόν διά τον κνρίον ημών Ίησον Χρίστον. [Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.]
41) Rom. 5:2: Δί οϋ (Χρίστον) και την προσαγωγήν εσχήκαμεν τη πίστει εις τήν χάριν ταντην. [By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.]
42) 1 Cor. 15:55: ποῦ σου θάνατε τὸ κέντρον; Phil. 1:23: ΈπιθνμΙαν εχων είς τό άναλνσαι καί σνν Χριστφ είναι.
43) Rom. 5:2: Κανχώμεθα έπ ελπίδι τής δόξης τον θεον.
15 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 15]
to the fact that both classes, non-Christians and Christians, according to their common human nature, have a human soul and mental movements, that is, to a purely formal sameness. But as far as the trend and the quality of the movements indicated by it are concerned, there is not sameness but complete opposition. It is also not to be forgotten in the study of the psychology of religion that the souls of non-Christians, according to Christ's reliable statement, are dwelling and working places of the strong armed one, who keeps his palace safe, 44) while the souls of Christians are inhabited and driven by the Spirit of God, 45) for which the apostle Paul also refers to the experience of the former heathens and Jews, who went through both psychological stages.46) Now, since the Prince of this world and the Holy Spirit do not cause essentially the same, but two different psychological phenomena in the souls, which are just opposite to each other, the psychology applied to religion also does not lead us to a uniform concept of religion, but on the contrary to two essentially different religions.
But also the historical consideration of the religions does not lead us beyond the duality of the same. If we present the "religious phenomena" in the non-Christian religions to ourselves and compare them with those of the Christian religion (Comparative Religion, Comparative Religious Research), then we again stand before the result, that the non-Christian religions want to regulate their relationship to the Godhead, no matter whether they think of the Godhead monotheistically or polytheistically or otherwise, in the way of human action, while the Christian religion has its essence precisely in the πίοτει, ουκ έξ έργων.47) The really historical consideration of religions leads to the result which Max Müller [sic Monier-Williams] summarizes in a blessed hour as the yield of his comparative religious research thus:48) "In the discharge of my duties for forty years as professor of Sanskrit
44) Luke 11:21.<w:t xml:space="preserve">45) 1 Cor 3:16; Rom 8:11, 14.
46) Eph. 2:11, 12 (μνημονεύετε); 1 Cor. 12:2 (οἴδατε); Eph. 2:2, 3: Περιεπατήοατε... κατά τον άρχοντα τής εξουσίας τον άέρος, τον πνεύματος τον νν ενεργοννντος εν τοΐς νίοϊς τής απείθειας.
47) Rom. 3:28; 4:5; Eph. 2:8.
48) The same words are reported II, 2, note 8, in German translation. We give here the English original.
16 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 15-16]
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 key-note, 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 thank-offering, 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."
Finally, also the philosophical concept of religion does not lead beyond the dual number of religions. Here we encounter the difficulty that its representatives are by no means unanimous about the meaning and content of a philosophical concept of religion. The philosophers of religion still speak most comprehensibly who understand the philosophical concept of religion "purely," that is, who want to completely dispense with the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God and as the source and norm of the Christian religion in determining "the essence of religion. If the philosophical concept of religion is understood in this "pure" way, the result is a concept of religion which corresponds to the "human idea" of religion. From this point of view it is said very correctly that a philosophy of religion, "strictly speaking," can exist only when human consciousness has progressed beyond the belief in authority and the idea of a miraculous instruction of men by divine revelation and does not revere the religious
17 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 17]
tenets of faith as something ready-made, inviolable, given absolutely from above. In short, the precondition for the establishment of a "genuine" or "purely" philosophical concept of religion is the setting aside of the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. Such a purely human concept of religion exists. But we stand here immediately again before the pagan concept of religion with the content: "salvation by works", as Max Müller [sic Monier-Williams] expresses it. And that is quite all right. We must always remember that the content of the Christian religion, according to which mankind is reconciled to God through Christ's satisfactio vicaria and man therefore has a gracious God without works of his own through faith in Christ, is terra incognita for every man, philosophers included. The content of the Christian religion has never come into a man's heart, επί καρδίαν ανθρώπου ούκ άνέβη [“entered into the heart of man”]. 49) On the other hand, a knowledge of the law of God is proper to all men, including the philosophers. The work of the law stands also in the hearts of the philosophers.50) Therefore, the religious thoughts of the men who belong to the department of "philosophers" also move in the field of the law and the works of men. Socrates, in the hour of his death, wants to have sacrificed a cock to Asclepius, and Kant, whom some have declared to be the first real philosopher of religion, has translated the essence of religion into human morality with the rejection of the Christian doctrine of reconciliation.51) Luther very clearly recognized and brought out the philosophers' concept of religion. He says, for example:52) "From this natural knowledge (of the law) have their origin all the books of the philosophers, who before others have been somewhat more reasonable than Aesop, Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon, Cicero, Cato. … But if you ask of conscience how that is to be satisfied, and of the hope of eternal life, they are in truth like the raven which here [Gen. 8:7] flies about the box, and finds not peace without, but within the box seeks it not, as Paul says of the Jews Rom. 9: ‘Israel hath been after the law of righteousness, and hath not passed over the law of righteousness.’ The reason is: the law is like the raven, is an office of death and sins, and makes hypocrites."53) In short, the "purer" we
49) 1 Cor. 2:9.<w:t>50) Rom. 2:15.
51) M. Heinze in RE.3 XVI, 613 f.<w:t xml:space="preserve"> 52) St. L. I, 621.
53) Even more detailed on Is. 9: 2 St. L. VI, 102 ff.
18 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 18]
the philosophical concept of religion corresponding to the "human idea", the more surely it leads past the Christian religion. It does not include the Christian religion in itself, but it is diametrically opposed to it. Thus, even by means of the psychological, historical and philosophical consideration of religions, we do not get beyond the duality of the essentially different religions.
There are, what we should point out here at least in passing, also such representatives of a "philosophical" concept of religion who do not want to dispense with the revelation of the Holy Scriptures, but on the contrary presuppose the revelation of the Scriptures and demand it as an object of contemplation. They admit that the Christian religion is beyond all human ideas of religion. They think, however, that the Christian truths revealed in Scripture and believed at first on the authority of Scripture can be presented subsequently for the human thinking process in such a way that, even apart from the revelation and authority of Scripture, they could be recognized and comprehended as truth by the thinking human mind. Thus meant Anselm, the "father of scholasticism," Credo, ut intelligam. [“I believe in order to understand”]. On the one hand, Anselm is zealous against the "modern dialecticians" who want to put knowledge before faith and therefore reject from the outset that which they cannot understand (intelligere). On the other hand, Anselm puts the issue to Christians to progress from faith to knowledge (proficere).54) Quite similarly, such recent theologians who consider it the real task of the "scientific theology" of our time to elevate faith to knowledge, to satisfy the "intellectual need" of Christians, or — which is the same thing — to prove the Christian religion to be an “absolute" truth, that is, a truth that, even apart from the revelation of Scripture, can be known as truth.55) This attempt to raise the status of faith is based on the opinion that, even if not all Christians, at least the "theologian" can already in this life acquire a knowledge of the Christian religion that goes beyond faith in God's revelation.
54) Mansi XX, 742: Christianus per fidem debet ad intellectum proficere, non per intellectum ad fidem accedere, aut, si intelligere non valet, a fide recedere. Sed cum ad intellectum valet pertingere, delectatur. [Google]
55) Cf. Luthardt, Dogmatik 10, p. 5 ff, under the section "Die Berechtigung der Theologie“. Also already Harleß, Theol. Enzyklopädie, 1837, p. 27.
19 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 18-19]
in the Word. This opinion is so certainly erroneous, as Christ allows all religious knowledge of truth to be imparted only by faith in his word, and the apostle Paul ascribes pomposity and ignorance (τετνφωται, μη Ιπιστάμενος) to every man, especially also to the teacher in the church, who does not abide by Christ's words.56) The result of the theology that wants to elevate faith to knowledge is, as old Lutheran theologians crudely put it, a monstrosity, namely a mixtum compositum of theology and philosophy, similar to "the biform generation of the Centaurs."57) According to this theological method, Anselm already eliminated the vicarious character of Christ's fulfillment of the law, the obedientia activa, from Christ's atoning work58) and Abelard, according to the same method59) , eliminated Christ's vicarious satisfaction (satisfactio vicaria) from Christian doctrine.60) Among the more recent theologians the attempt to elevate faith to knowledge has led to the result that with them the denial of satisfactio vicaria61) and the denial of Scripture as the sole source and norm of Christian doctrine has admittedly become quite general. This subject must be taken again under several of the following sections, especially also under the chapter "Theology and Science".