10. The more detailed description of theology, conceived as doctrines.
Because theology, taken subjectively or as doctrinal aptitude, is the fitness (ίκανότης) to teach no more and no less than God's Word,200) which the Church of our time possesses in the written Word of the apostles and prophets, 201) so theology, taken objectively or as doctrine (doctrina), is nothing other than the presentation of the doctrine present in Holy Scriptures. What the Holy Scriptures say in several or even many places about the individual doctrines according to text and context, the theologian puts together in one place. This is how the doctrine is formed, which the Christian theologian presents orally or in writings. The old Lutheran theologians say of theology, conceived as the presentation of Christian doctrine (theologia positiva), that it is nothing other than Scripture itself arranged into the individual doctrines. Therefore, in the body of doctrine (corpus doctrinae), no element, even if it were the smallest, could be found that did not have its support in the rightly understood Scripture.202) Likewise, Luther describes the teaching activity of all theologians after the time of the apostles. He calls the theologians, including himself, "catechumens and disciples of the prophets", "as we say and preach what we have heard and learned from the prophets and apostles".203) Such is Luther's seriousness about mere "imitating" on the part of theologians that he says in negative stipulation, "No other doctrine shall be taught and heard in the church than the pure Word of God, that is, the Holy Scriptures, or teachers and hearers shall be accursed with their doctrine."204) The same truth
200) 1 Petr. 4:11: Et τις λαλεΐ, ώς λόγια ϑεον. The doctrine in force in the church is ή διδασκαλία τον αωτήρος ήμών ϑεον, Tit. 2:10.
201) What the apostles taught orally, the same (ταΰτα) they also wrote, 1 John 1:3, 4.
202) Aug. Pfeiffer, Thesaurus hermeneut, p. 6, also quoted in Walther-Baier I, 43. 76: Theologia positiva, si rem recte aestimemus, nihil aliud est ... quam ipsa Scriptura Sacra in certos locos concinno ordine et perspicua methodo redacta, unde ne unicum quidem membrum, quantillum etiam, in illo doctrinae corpore esse debet, quod non e Scriptura Sacra probe intellecta statuminetur. [Google]
203) In the exposition of the last words of David, 2 Sam. 23:1 ff. St. L. III, 1890.
204) Comment, ad Gal., ed. Erl. I, 91: Neque alia doctrina in ecclesia tradi et audiri debet quam purum Verbum Dei, hoc est, Sancta Scriptura, vel doctores et auditores cum sua doctrina anathema sunto. [Google]
57 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 52-53]
is expressed even more briefly in the well-known axiom: Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum.
Therefore, for the closer characterization of the doctrine that has its home in the Christian Church, it belongs that the Christian theologian does not have to teach changeable human opinions and views, but the unchangeable divine truth or God's own doctrine (doctrinam divinam). This nature of Christian doctrine is given by the nature of the source, that is, by the nature of Holy Scriptures, from which the Christian theologian draws the doctrine he presents. Because the Holy Scriptures, according to the testimony of Christ and His apostles, and also according to their self-attestation in the hearts of Christians, are God's own infallible Word, so also the doctrine taken from the Scriptures is not κατά την παράδοσιν των ανθρώπων, that is, not doctrine of men (Col. 2:8), but God's own doctrine, ή διδασκαλία τον σωτήρος ημών θεον (Tit. 2:10). Because modern theology does not accept the Scriptures as the Word of God and therefore takes refuge in its own inner self, in the theological ego, from the Scriptures, which in its opinion are unreliable, and makes this ego the source of reference for Christian doctrine, the doctrine which presents itself for acceptance in the Church of God is thus in principle moved away from the area of objective divine truth and transferred to the area of subjective human view. In this state of affairs, it seems appropriate to elaborate on the point of the nature of the doctrines justified in the Christian church.
We hold: Because the Holy Scriptures are not the word of man, but the Word of God, the closer description of theology, objectively or conceived as doctrine, is that the doctrine (doctrina e Scriptura Sacra hausta) created by the theologian from the Scriptures is divine doctrine, doctrina divina. And not only in the sense that it is about God and divine things, but precisely and primo loco in the sense that it is God's own doctrine, view and judgment in contrast to all human doctrines, views and judgments about God and divine things.
To illustrate: The Christian theologian teaches of the creation of the world and man what God teaches about it Gen. 1 and 2 and otherwise in Scripture. What is said in human writings about the origin of the world and of man,
58 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 53-54]
the theologian takes careful note of because it involves his profession in the present, but dismisses it as worthless human opinion unless it agrees with God's own account of creation which we have in Scripture. The Christian theologian teaches about the Fall and sin no more and no less than what God reports, teaches and judges about it in Holy Scriptures. The Christian theologian also has to take note at this point of a whole number of human views about the origin of sin and about the character of sin and its consequences. But he, on his part, brings under antithesis everything that contradicts God's thesis in Scripture, which cannot be broken. The Christian theologian teaches as Christian doctrine of the redemption of mankind fallen in sin and guilty before God, namely, of the eternal Son of God's incarnation, person, and work, only what God Himself teaches about these great things (τα μεγαλεία τον ϑεοϋ), which never came into a man's heart (επι καρδίαν ανθρώπου οϋκ άνέβη),205) but were hidden from the world, but are now revealed by the prophets' writings at the command of the eternal God (διά τε γραφών προφητικών κατ επιταγήν του αιωνίου ϑεοΰ).206) Especially in the doctrine of redemption, the Christian theologian of the present day is confronted with the fact that modern theology criticizes, declares "too juridical" and rejects the divine method of redemption, especially the vicarious satisfaction of Christ (satisfactio vicaria). But this criticism of the divine method of redemption from the human point of view only has the effect on the Christian theologian that he presents the redemption, which according to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments took place through the vicarious satisfaction of Christ,207) all the more decisively from the Scriptures. And as for the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, the doctrine of obtaining justification before God, the Christian theologian teaches that man obtains the forgiveness of his sins by faith (πίστει), that is, by believing in the gospel, which confers the forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ's
205) 1 Cor. 2:9; Jn. 1:18.
206) Rom. 16:25-26. Eph. 3:7-12 in more detail.
207) The detailed account under the section "The vicarious satisfaction" II, 407-454.
59 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English edition 54-55]
vicarious satisfaction, without law and without works of law (χωρίς νόμου, χωρίς έργων νόμου), that is, without any good moral condition of his own and without any performance of his own on the part of man. Neither by Rome's curse, nor by the contradiction of degenerate Protestantism, which rejects the divine method of justification as too external and juridical, nor even by the contradiction of his own natural heart, to which, after all, the "opinio legis" adheres naturally, can the Christian theologian be induced to change the doctrine of justification attested in Scripture, "even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin."208) As such, every Christian theologian is also always a practical theologian. And it is precisely at the central doctrine of the forgiveness of sins that his own "experience" warns him. He thinks of how terrible it would be if the sinner, struck by the law of God, should depend for the forgiveness of his sins on human views instead of God's own revealed doctrines. And so through all parts of Christian doctrine, including the doctrines of eternal damnation and eternal salvation. In short, the Christian theologian teaches from "God's book," as Luther calls the Scriptures, God's own doctrine, doctrinam divinam, in opposition to all human thoughts and views.
This nature of the doctrine to be presented in the Christian church, that it must be doctrina divina, is demanded throughout the Scriptures themselves. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are full of warnings against all teachers who do not merely teach the Word of God, but allow themselves to present their own views. We read in the prophet Jeremiah the powerful words: "Thus says the Lord of hosts: Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain:" (חֲזֹ֤ון לִבָּם֙, [HEBREW: Jer. 23:16], that is, their' own view) "and not from the Lord's mouth."209) The same prohibition against teaching human thoughts and views and the same binding of all teachers to God's mouth is expressed throughout the New Testament. Whoever opens his mouth to teach in the church, which is, after all, "God's house, "210) is to speak God's word (λόγια θεός). 211)
208) Schmalk. Art. M. 300, 5. [Trigl., 461, 5 🔗]
209) Jer. 23:16. parallels: Jer. 14:14; 27:14-16; Klagl. 2:14; Ezek. 13:2 ff.
210) 1 Tim. 3:15.
60 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 55]
He who teaches otherwise (έτεροδιδασκαλεΐ), and does not abide by the sound words of Christ which we have in the word of his apostles,212) is disqualified for the teaching office in the Christian church, because, instead of teaching divine truth, he is puffed up in his own human opinion, τετύφωτat, knows nothing, μη επιοτάμενος, but is sick with disputations and strifes of words (νοσών περί ζητήσεις καί λογομαχίας)213) Therefore, as in the Old, so also in the New Testament, Christians are instructed, 214) to all teachers, who do not bring Christ's doctrine (την διδαχήν του Χρίστου), that is, God's doctrine, to be denied Christian fellowship, because such teachers cause divisions and offences in the church by their own doctrine, which they allow themselves (τ διχοστασίας και τά σκάνδαλα ηοιοΰντες), depriving Christians of the goods of their Christian state (τοΐς έ'ργοις τοΐς πονηροΐς), not doing the precious work of a Christian teacher, but incurring evil works (τοΐς έ'ργοις τοΐς πονηροΐς). So decidedly is it required in Scripture that the doctrine preached in the Christian Church is God's own doctrine, doctrina divina.
How powerfully Luther insists on doctrina divina in the Christian church in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, we already saw from his remark on Jer. 23:16, in which he addresses the theologians thus: "O theologians, where do you want to pass here? Do you think that it is a small thing for the high majesty to reject what does not come from the mouth of God and is something other than the Word of God?" 215) Luther was so concerned about the nature of the doctrine to be taught in the Christian church that he inculcated the necessitas doctrinae divinae in ecclesia tradendae et audiendae from several points of view. Thus in the distinction between church and state. In the "secular and domestic government," Luther says, human views and human words have their justification, because this area is subject to the "natural light," that is, to human reason. On the other hand, with regard to doctrines in the church, he says: "If anyone wishes to preach, let him be silent of his words." " Here in the church he should speak nothing
211) 1 Petr. 4:11. Luther: "This is so that he may be sure that he is speaking the Word of God and not his own word. (XII, 443.)
212) Jn. 8:31-32, compare with Jn. 17:20.
213) 1 Tim. 6:4.<w:t>214) 2 John 8-11; Rom. 16:17.
215) Quoted under the previous section, p. 52.
61 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 55-56]
but this rich landlord's [God's] word; otherwise it is not the true church. Therefore it must be thus: God is speaking."216) From here we understand Luther's strange-sounding word that Christian doctrine does not "belong in the Lord's Prayer." Luther wants to inculcate the rule that the pastor should not have to ask God for forgiveness of sins for the doctrines he presents.217) Rather, the pastor must be certain that he has not preached his own word, but God's, which "God neither should nor can forgive, but confirm, praise, crown, and say: You have taught rightly, for I have spoken through you, and the Word is mine." So serious is Luther about the requirement that the doctrine presented within the church must be God's own doctrine that he adds: "Whoever cannot boast such things of his sermon, let him only stop preaching, for he is certainly lying and blaspheming God." 218) Luther deals with the same subject when describing the authority of the Christian church. He denies the church any authority to make Christian doctrines or to set articles of faith, and justifies this with the fact that the church has and proclaims no word of its own at all, but only Christ's word. Of any doctrine that is not Christ's Word, he says, "Though much babbling be done apart from God's Word, yet is not the church in babbling…. Let them cry and rave, 'Church, Church!'; without God's Word it is nothing."219) — And Luther wants this to be applied also to these teachers in the church, who in the eminent sense are called theologians, theologians κατ εξοχήν, namely to the professors of theology. A part of the more recent theologians has taken the position that the plain pastor may, indeed should, be content to present the doctrine available in Scripture, but that university theologians, who have to represent science, are not to be subjected to these restrictions.220) On the other hand, Luther also demands of the
216) St. L. XII, 1413 f.<w:t xml:space="preserve">217) St. L. XVII, 1343 f.
218) St. L. VIII, 37.<w:t xml:space="preserve">219) St. L. XII, 1414.
220) Thus, for example, Kahnis in a very pronounced manner in Zeugnis von den Grundwahrheiten des Protestantismus gegen Dr. Hengstenberg, Leipzig 1862, p. 133: "I have written my dogmatics not for the Christian people, not for educated non-theologians, but only for scientific theologians. However, after Dr. Hengstenberg and Dr. Münkel have brought the matter into wider circles in a thoroughly unjustified manner, I have at least had to address wider
62 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 57]
University theologians the strictest discipline of thought. They should relentlessly eliminate all thoughts about God and divine things that are not expressed in clear scriptural words. He cites his own example for this. He says that we cannot avoid having our own thoughts when dealing with the high things concerning God and divine things. He, too, had many thoughts of his own. But God had given him the grace to let those thoughts fall out again that came to him without a word. Luther comes to this point when Zwingli and his comrades reproached him with lack of "spirit" and called his clinging to the words of the Scriptures head knowledge, service to the letter, spiritless theology etc.. Luther, on the other hand, remarked that he had more thoughts of his own than all the enthusiasts put together. However, he let such thoughts go because they have no right of home in the church. He writes:221) "O how many fine ideas I have had in the Scriptures, which I have had to let go, which, if an enthusiast had had them, would have been too few for him.” Luther, as we have already heard, calls all teachers who really stand under the direction of the Holy Spirit "catechumens and disciples of the prophets," "as whom we repeat and preach what we have heard and learned from the prophets and apostles.222) People have bristled at this "retelling" as a description of a Christian teacher's doctrines. But Luther does not understand the "repeat" as if the Christian teacher "should not need more or different words than are written in Scripture";
circles than the readers of my Dogmatics in this writing. P. 118 f. against Pastor Münkel in particular: "I cannot imagine that Pastor Münkel, who signs himself Doctor of Theology, understands so little of theology that he should not know that there are difficulties which must be discussed. Of course, such studies are not for the people. But who brings them to the people? Such papers as Pastor Münkel writes to themselves. ... So he, this intermediary between science and the people, who does not really belong to either circle, he confuses the people, not me. If Pastor Münkel can't stand the heights where avalanches and boulders fall, let him stay in the Lüneburg Heath with the sheep herdes, tend bees and grow asparagus." Thus Kahnis speaks from his standpoint that Holy Scriptures are not "the inspired textbook of pure doctrine" (p. 127) and therefore what Christian doctrine is must first be determined by the science of theologians.
221) St. L. XX, 792. ed. 30, 46.
222) St. L. III, 1890. ed. 37, 12.
63 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 57-58]
stand"; for "this cannot be kept.223) However, Luther wants to emphatically inculcate that the Christian teacher "should not teach anything in doctrines divine apart from the Scriptures. The content of his doctrine should be a mere reproduction of the doctrines of the prophets and apostles, that is, doctrina divina, without any admixture of his own human views. For this, Luther adds, is the characteristic of all faithful teachers who, after the time of the apostles, administer the doctrine in the church, that they "put nothing of their own nor new, as the prophets do, but teach what they have from the prophets." The teachers at the theological institutions of the Missouri Synod do not exaggerate when they remind the students to carefully examine their prepared sermons once again to see whether a "scripture-less" thought [Luther's expression] has not crept in, and to delete it relentlessly, because as an ego product it has no justification in God's church, which is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
As for the old Lutheran theologians, it was already pointed out at the beginning of this section that Christian theology, conceived as doctrine, was to them nothing but an ordered compilation of the divine doctrine present in the Holy Scriptures. Hence their definitions of the doctrinal object of theology: doctrina e revelatione divina hausta, doctrina ex Verbo Dei exstructa, etc. Hence also their admonition that in the church doctrinae corpus belongs only that which can be proved to be present in Scripture. To emphasize this nature of Christian doctrine, the ancient theologians called theology, conceived as doctrine, also theologia έκτυπος, exemplary theology, that is, a reproduction or imprint of theologia αρχέτυπος, the archetypal theology, that is, of the knowledge of God and divine things, which is originally found only in God, but which God by his grace has imparted or communicated to men through his Word. This terminology is not superfluous and obsolete, as has been thought,224) but quite scriptural and very instructive to theologians of all ages. Of more recent theologians, Rudelbach has acknowledged this. He says: "I do not know whether anyone
- - - - - - - - - –
223) St. L. XVI, 2212.
224) Bretschneider, Systematische Entwicklung aller in der Dogmatik vorkommenden Begriffes p. 68.
64 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 58]
has called attention to the Scriptural ground of this division [into αρχέτυπος and έκτυπος], this concept of theology. Alone, where could it well be sought than in the words of the Lord Matt. 11:27: 'No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wills to reveal it.'"225) Our ancient theologians have amply demonstrated the scriptural basis. Scherzer: Theologia αρχέτυπος est ipsius Dei de se ipso cognitio, Matt. 11:27; 1 Cor. 2:10 f.226) The ancient theologians state the following thoughts: 1. Only God knows God; for us men God dwells in a light inaccessible to us, 1 Cor. 2:10, 11; Jn. 1:18a; Matt. 11:27 — 1 Tim. 6:16. 2. God has stepped out of the light that is inaccessible to us men through self-revelation. The divine self-revelation is present in two ways: in God's kingdom of nature and in his Word. The self-revelation present in the kingdom of nature (Rom. 1:19 ff. 32; 2:14. 15; Acts 14:17; 17:26. 27) is the source of knowledge of natural theology; the self-revelation present in God's Word (Jn. 1:18b; 8:31-32: Eph. 2. 20) is the only source of knowledge of Christian theology. Therefore, only the theology that is έκτυπος, as it is, is the only reproduction of the divine doctrine that is fixed in the Holy Scriptures. One can read about this in Gerhard.227) Theologia έκτυπος is factually nothing else than when Luther says of the Christian teachers after the time of the Apostles
225) Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. u. K. 1848, I, 7. Quoted in Baier-Walther I, 5.
226) Systema, Proleg. de Theologia, p. 2. In Quenstedt, Systema I, 5 sq., under Thesis IV.
227) Gerhard says, L. de de Natura Theologiae, § 15 sqq, on the division of theology into theologiam αρχέτυπον καί έκτνπον: 'Αρχέτυπος seu πρωτότυπος est in Deo Creatore, qua Deus seipsum novit in seipso et extra se universa per seipsum actu scientiae individuo et immutabili… . 'Έκτυπος theologia est ex priori quasi expressa et efformata per gratiosam communicationem. [Google] The means of communication of knowledge, which is originally only in God, is the external Word, quo [Deus] in tempore homines alloqnitur. From this follows for Christian theology: principium theologiae supernaturalis adaequatum et proprium esse divinam revelationem, quae cum hodie nonnisi in sacris literis, hoc est, in propheticis Veteris et apostolicis Novi Testamenti libris descripta exstet, inde scriptum Dei Verbum sive, quod idem est, Scripturam Sacram dicimus esse unicum et proprium theologiae principium. [Google] Likewise and in more detail Quenstedt, Systema I, 5 sqq.
65 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 59-60]
that they are not "prophets" but "children of the prophets", "catechumens and disciples of the prophets", because they only repeat and preach what they have heard and learned from the prophets. And when, for example, Scherzer brings theology, insofar as it does not correspond to the original type present in Scripture (theologia αρχέτυπος), under the category of mataeologia (vain theology) and calls it heretical, void babble,228) this is also nothing new, but the same as when Luther had said that everything that is taught in the church without Scripture is not church doctrine, but calls it "babble:".
This character of the Christian doctrine, that it must be doctrina divina in contrast to all human thoughts and views, is, as was already noted at the beginning, completely abandoned by modern theology in principle. The reason for this is its changed position towards Holy Scriptures. Whom: Luther makes it the: Christian: theologians to drop out again every thought which is not taken from the words of Scripture, and if the dogmatists call a teacher Christian only in so far as his doctrine is theologia έκτυπος, merely reproduction of the doctrine of Scripture, this has its reason in the fact that they — Luther as well as the dogmatists — hold the Holy Scriptures to be God's own Word or "God's mouth." Because modern theologians reject this position on Scripture229) and consider it the only scientifically correct method if they withdraw from "the pious consciousness of the theologizing subject,"230) thus theology is set on the subjective human view instead of the objective divine truth. We have the situation described in the more familiar: Luther's words, which Hase prefixes to his Hutterus Redivivus as a motto: "Everyone wants to be in the shop for sale, not that they want to reveal Christ
228) Systema, p. 2: In quantum [viatorum theologia] illud αρχέτυπον in Verbo nobis revelatum refert et exprimit, in tantum theologia vera est. Quae ab illo archetypo recedit, falsa et haeretica mataeologia est.
229) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 258: "In the present day the orthodox doctrine of inspiration has hardly any dogmatic significance." Horst Stephan, Glaubenslehre, 1921, p. 52: " Today the doctrine of inspiration has been abandoned by scientific theology; it is only in lay orthodoxy ... where it still has a strong effect."
230) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 12 ff. 15: "No one bases his dogmatics in the old Protestant way on the norma normans" (Bible).
66 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 60]
or his mystery, but that they want to have their own mystery and beautiful thoughts that they hold about Christ's mystery for free. Through them they hope to convert even the devils, while they have never yet converted a gnat. And the worst of it is, all they do is pervert the truth.231) That this dictum of Luther's describes the situation in the church of the present day, has already been testified to by a witness from the modern-theological camp. It is conceded that the great agreement in the "principle" according to which Christian doctrine is to be drawn not from the Bible but from pious self-consciousness has as its concomitant an "almost infinite abundance" of different trends in doctrine.232) Modern theology has fallen so deeply below the Christian level by setting aside the principle of Scripture that it even regards "different trends" in doctrine as beauties of the Christian church and describes the agreement in doctrine and faith, which is so clearly demanded in Scripture,233) as an abnormality and as a "repristination" of an "overcome" theological point of view.
Among the more recent Lutheran theologians of a "conservative" trend, Hofmann of Erlangen has been particularly decisive in advocating Ego theology. For this reason, he has probably been called the father of Ego theology within the Lutheran Church of the nineteenth century. Recently it was said in the Leipzig "Theologischen Literaturblatt", "that Hofmann and even more so Frank consciously and fundamentally advocated the full self-certainty of Christianity and its theology in itself".234) Hofmann, in fact, instructs the theologian that in presenting Christian doctrine, he should at first completely disregard not only what the Church has taught, but also what is stated in Holy Scripture about Christian doctrine,
231) St. L. XIV, 397. Erl. 63, 371.
232) Nitzsch-Stephan, Lehrb. d. ev. Dogmatik 3, p. 16, and Introduction, p. IX.
233) Scripture calls for 1 Cor. 1:10 αντό λέγειν . . , εν τω αντφ νοΐ και εν tfj avrfj γνώμτ) Eph. 4:5 the μία πίστις, 2 Tim. 1:13 νγιαίνοντες λόγοι. The expression "sound doctrine" (Luther: "wholesome teaching"), η διδασκαλία ή νγιαί-νονοα, Tit. 1:9; 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; 1 Tim. 1:10, is "pure doctrine" in the sense that the doctrine to be presented in the church must be God's own doctrine, without admixture of human thoughts, as the expression 1 Tim. 6:3 is declared by the apostle himself.
234) Theol. Literaturblatt, edited by Ihmels, Leipzig, Dec. 8, 1922. p. 395.
67 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 60-61]
and instead cause the theological Ego to testify "in exclusive independence" about Christian doctrine. We put a passage from Hofmann's "Schriftbeweis" here. Hofmann means:235) "That relationship to God [in Christ], after I have become partaker of it, has begun an independent existence in me, which, although possible only within the church believing in Scripture, does not depend on the church nor on the Scripture to which the church refers, nor does it have the actual and closest guarantee of its truth in the former or in the latter, but rests in itself and is directly certain truth, borne and guaranteed by the indwelling Spirit of God. Accordingly, the same thing, where one wants it to be brought to knowledge and statement, wants to and must remain purely itself, unmixed with that, undisturbed by that which is outside of it, that is, outside of us, where it is situated. And whether that which is outside of us stands in however close, causal relation to that which is within us, and whether it can be unquestionably recognized as the same truth: here it is necessary to carry out the one next task purely for itself, in exclusive independence. Admittedly, where things go right, Scripture and the church will offer quite the same thing that we raise in ourselves. However, that only follows after the performance of our chief task." From Hofmann's last words it is clear that Hofmann promises subsequent revision of the ego product according to Scripture, as the supreme norm. This promise has earned Hofmann the reproach of inconsistency, that is, the reproach of apostasy from the ego principle and of relapse into "biblicism" and "intellectualism." Very recently, Horst Stephan again rebukes Hofmann for adding a "proof of Scripture" on the grounds: "Thus one took away the unity of the dogmatic method; one basically came back to biblicist and confessionalist dogmatics."236) And this charge of inconsistency, viewed from Hofmann's experiential-theological standpoint, is justified. Hofmann, after all, very firmly denies that the Holy Scriptures are God's infallible Word by inspiration. But if Scripture is not God's infallible Word, but in it the theologian must distinguish between truth and error, then Scripture is no longer a norm for him,
235) Schriftbeweis 2 1. 11.<w:t xml:space="preserve">236) Glaubenslehre, Gießen 1921, p. 21.
68 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 61-62]
but a norma normata, which is to be examined and corrected by the Ego of the theologian. In general, it stands that the functions of Scripture, according to which it is both source and norm of Christian doctrine, cannot be separated from each other. Scripture is the norm of Christian doctrine only because it is its only source. And whoever of us is in the abnormal theological condition that he thinks that for the purpose of presenting the Christian doctrine he must at first completely take his eyes off the Bible and instead look into his own Ego, will hardly afterwards open the Bible again for the purpose of using it as a correcting norm against his Ego product. Rather, by virtue of the once taken wrong trend, he will open the Bible afterwards for the purpose of drawing it to his human thoughts. Thus Hofmann did not carry out the promised subsequent revision of what he had "found" in his Ego "purely for himself, in self-contained independence", setting aside the Scriptures. On the contrary, he also defended such parts of the Ego product as the denial of the satisfactio vicaria even against warning friends in his "protective writings" in an almost fanatical manner, as one said at that time: with the anger of the mother lion, from whom one wants to rob her cub. It should be quite clear to every theologian that at this point we stand before an aut – aut [either – or] . Either we let the Scriptures be God's own Word and teach from them, as the only source and norm of theology, doctrinam divinam, or we deny that the Scriptures are God's infallible Word, distinguish in them between truth and error, and teach from our Ego in God's church of our own "heart's face." The divine authority we deny to Scripture we necessarily ascribe to our own human spirit. We swim in the sea of subjectivism. Human opinion is placed in the chair of doctrine in the Church. Theology is no longer theocentric but anthropocentric in orientation.
The seriousness of the modern theologians' renunciation of Scripture and thus of the doctrina divina is evident from the fact that they are not merely defensive (e.g., by claiming that they teach only "old truth" in a "new way"), but also go on a strong offensive. They label the drawing of Christian doctrine from Scripture with a whole series of evil names such as: Intellectualism,
69 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 62-63]
Biblicism, literal theology, mechanical view of Scripture, view of Scripture as if it were a doctrinal code, a code of laws fallen from heaven, a paper pope, and so on. We encounter at this point among modern theologians pretty much the same vocabulary of invective that both the Roman and Reformed enthusiasts used against Luther and the Lutheran Church. Roman theologians also scoffed at the idea that the Christian Church should depend on "paper" and "parchment" for its doctrines.237) In doing so, they had an interest in keeping the Pope's Ego as the source and norm of Christian doctrines. In the same way, the Reformed enthusiasts considered Luther's adherence to the Word of Scripture to be dead letter theology and unevangelical Christianity. They were interested in giving that "Holy Spirit", to whom a "chariot" (vehiculum, plaustrum) was neither necessary nor decent, 238) free way in the church. But because God's Holy Spirit has the way to use a "chariot", namely the means of grace, the interest — consciously or unconsciously — was in fact none other than to put the allegedly directly enlightened own spirit on the ruler's throne in the Church of God. And if now the modern theologians call the drawing and standardizing of Christian doctrine from the Holy Scriptures intellectualism, literal theology, etc., and speak of the “paper pope” and make the "experience" of the theologian the source and norm of Christian doctrine in place of the Scriptures, the interest — consciously or unconsciously or semi-consciously — is none other than to establish the product of one's own mind in God's Church as the supreme authority. The divine authority which is denied to Scripture is in fact ascribed to the Ego of the theologian. We have the result Luther describes as a result of the papist discrediting of Scripture thus: "They speak such things only for the sake of leading us out of Scripture and elevating themselves to masters over us, that we should believe their dream sermons."239) And against the
237) With exceedingly foolish calling on 2 Cor. 3:3: "not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God". Francis Coster asserts in his Enchiridion Controversiarum Praecipuarum, c. 1, p. 43: Christum nec ecclesiam suam a chartaceis Scripturis pendere nec membranis mysteria sua committere voluisse [Google]. (In Quenstedt I, 90, 92.)
238) Cf. the quotations under the section "The Cause of Parties within Outer Christendom," p. 26.
239) St. L. V, 334 f.
70 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 63-64]
Reformed enthusiasts who invoked their directly enlightened "spirit" against the scriptural word, Luther writes: "The reason and cause of their conceit is that one must put these words, 'This is my body,' out of one's sight and first consider things through the spirit. … This devil walks freely without a mask and teaches us publicly not to look at the Scriptures, 240) just as the Münzer and Carlstadt also did, who also had their art from the testimony of their inwardness and were not allowed to teach the Holy Scriptures for themselves, but for others as an outward testimony of the testimony in their inwardness."
How generally the Ego theology against the Scripture Principle comes on the scene and dominates the modern-theological market is evident from the fact that not only the decidedly liberal theologians, but also those who are considered positive, speak of "intellectualism" etc., if the Christian doctrine is drawn and standardized from Scripture instead of from within the theologian. Ihmels, for example, also accuses both the first church and the church of the Reformation, and especially the dogmatists, of an intellectualistic view of Scripture, because they appealed directly to Scripture for Christian doctrine.241) Ihmels does have an apology for the first church. The "young theology" had to deal with an opposition that "was itself religiously oriented to a good part." Therefore it had been obvious to appeal to a unique supernatural revelation. What is meant is the calling on the word of the prophets and apostles as Word of God and doctrines. But this method was perverse, because it was "essentially intellectualistic". Likewise, Ihmels has an apology for "Reformation Christianity." The church of the Reformation also had to deal with an opposition that was strongly religiously oriented. The Roman Church claimed divine authority for the traditional doctrines held within it. If, on the other hand, the interest of the church of the Reformation was directed toward pure doctrine, "then this interest could seem most securely guaranteed by this doctrine being directly covered with the
240) St. L. XX, 1022 f. Cf. Zwingli's admonition "that no one be angered by the fearful requests of the words (the words of the Lord's Supper are meant); for we do not set our foundation in them. Reprinted in Luther's Works, St. L. XX, 477.
241) Central Questions 2, p. 56 ff.
71 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 63-64]
authority of divine revelation". But this method of Reformation Christianity was also perverse, because it was essentially intellectualistic. Ihmels judges, "The Reformation, too, and even more so the old dogmatics, essentially stood by the intellectualistic understanding of revelation." Ihmels, too, therefore, in order to escape intellectualism, biblicism, etc., does not want to draw Christian doctrine from Scripture alone.
The question arises, how the modern theologians come to the strange opinion that the adherence to the Scripture Principle involves intellectualism, a mere intellectual Christianity, dead orthodoxy without inner warmth. The strange opinion corresponds to a strange reasoning. One thinks that the old method lacks the "psychological connection" or "mediation". Richard Rothe242) takes the alleged state of affairs as follows: "It is perverse if the old dogmatics lets the (divine) revelation begin immediately with a communication of supernatural truths. It [the old dogmatics] must think of a mechanical infusion of such truths, and this necessarily bears a magical character, because it lacks the psychological connection with men." This, of course, would be an evil state of affairs. On the other hand, it must be remembered: neither does the old dogmatics have to think of a mechanical infusion of supernatural truths, nor did it think of such an infusion. Rather, ancient dogmatics conceived of "psychological mediation" exactly as the Apostle Paul did in 1 Cor. 2, namely, that in the proclamation of "the divine sermon" (in the μαρτνριον τον ϑεον) the Holy Spirit is present and psychologically effective, that is, that the Holy Spirit gives recognition to the divine sermon in the psyche, in the hearts of the hearers, through the effect of faith. There is no question that the old dogmatic thought of psychological mediation in this way. Quenstedt is generally recognized as a representative of the old dogmatics. But Quenstedt writes:243) "The Gospel of Christ receives its testimony of truth through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which the Holy Spirit deposits (perhibet) inwardly in our hearts. ... The Holy Spirit bears
242) Quoted in Ihmels, Zentralfragen, p. 60. Ihmels himself on "psychological mediation," op. cit. p. 78.
243) Systema 1715, I, 145.
72 72><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 64-65]
witness that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is 'truth,' that is, absolutely true, when He works inwardly through the doctrine revealed by Him and comprehended in the Scriptures in the hearts of men, touching, drawing, and moving them so that they believe the doctrine as originating from God or as truly divine.” So "psychological mediation" is perfectly all right in the old dogmatics. And — we must add — there is no other "psychological mediation" of the supernatural truths of Christianity at all, because the gospel of Christ crucified has not only not come into any man's heart, 244) but also appears to every natural man as an offence and folly.245) All the apologetic activity that stands at our disposal is not able to change the human heart and thus to give inward recognition to the gospel of Christ. The apostle Paul also puts this point clearly into the light. ' He explicitly reports 1 Cor. 2 that he abstained from the "psychological point of contact" through reasonable speeches of human wisdom (εv πειϑοϊς σοφίας λόγοις), so that the faith of the Corinthians would not stand on human wisdom, but would have its foundation in evidence of the Spirit and power. There is, therefore, a great aberration in the assertion that by directly teaching the divine doctrines from Scripture a mere understanding, "intellectualism," is produced, or that a "mechanical infusion of supernatural truths" takes place. And, by the way, what inward exaltation of Ego theology confronts us here! We may well count on general agreement when we say: If the written word of the apostles and prophets of Christ cannot gain recognition in the hearts of men or convey itself "psychologically", the word, which comes only from the "experience" of modern theologians, will do even less. As is well known, this point is also referred to in the Smalcald Articles, when it says of the enthusiasts in the strong language of Luther: "This is all the old devil and old serpent, who also made Adam and Eve enthusiasts, led from the outward Word of God to spiritism and conceit (proprias opiniones), and yet did it also by other outward words. Just as our enthusiasts also
244) 1 Cor. 2:9; Rom. 16:25.<w:t>245) 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:14.
73 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 66]
condemn the outward word, and yet they themselves are not silent, but chatter and write the world full, just as if the Spirit could not come through the writing or oral word of the apostles, but through their writing and word it must come!""246)
In general, the whole terminology of the newer theologians, who want to draw the Christian doctrine from within themselves, moves in the field of self-deception and thus in the field of untruth. This can be clearly seen if we visualize the vocabulary belonging here in its main points. The theological teachers of our time have the indispensable duty to expose the self-deceptions present here to the studying youth.
A self-deception is present in the calling to the Christian "experience". There is, of course, a Christian experience. Without a personal Christian experience there is no Christianity. Every man who is a Christian has experienced and still experiences first of all his personal condemnation before God and then the trust of the heart in the forgiveness of sins, which Christ has acquired through his satisfactio vicaria. But this double experience is conveyed only through the proclamation or doctrines of the Word of God, first of the Law and then of the Gospel. As Christ commands to preach in his name among all nations repentance (μετάνοιαν) and forgiveness of sins (αφεσιν αμαρτιών).247) The same commission was given in a special appearance of Christ to the apostle Paul, and according to received commission Paul preached repentance and conversion to God to Jews and heathen (μετανοεϊν καί επιοτρέφειν έπι τον θεόν).248) Now both words, the word of the law and the word of the gospel, the Christian church has until the Last Day in the written word of the apostles. And from this Word, which is God's own Word and expresses God's own judgment in regards to "sin" and "forgiveness of sins," and not from the experience of theologians, setting aside the Word of God, as Ego heology would have us do, repentance (contritio) and forgiveness of sins (remissio peccatorum sive fides in Christ) are to be taught in the Christian Church. What the "grandfather" and "father" of Ego theology in the nineteenth century, Schleiermacher and Hofmann, together with their successors, taught from within themselves about sin,
246) M. 322, 5. 6. [Trigl., 495, 5-6 🔗]<w:t>247) Luke 24:46. 47.<w:t>248) Acts 26, 20.
74 74><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 66-67]
cannot be worked or "experienced" in any human being by contritio and fides, namely fides in Christum crucifixum. It is quite generally conceded that Schleiermacher, from his Reformed-pantheistic standpoint, does not know the concept of sin at all. And if Hofmann denies original sin from his consciousness of faith "independent" of Scripture,249) he too is consequently a bad preacher of repentance. Both Schleiermacher and Hofmann deny the satisfactio vicaria, and thus it is obvious that, as far as the doctrine created from their Ego is concerned, they cannot let the fides of the crucified Savior work or "experience" it. It must be clearly recognized and held that first of all the contritio is not to be taught from human, especially also not from "scientifically imparted" views of sin, but from God's own doctrine of the law, which the church also possesses until the Last Day in the law written in the Scriptures, and that without addition and without dismissal.250) This is then "the thunderbolt of God, that he may smite both manifest sinners and false saints in one heap, and let none be right, driving them all into fright and despondency.".... This is not activa contritio, a made repentance, but passiva contritio, the right heartache, suffering and feeling of death. And is to begin the right repentance, and here man must hear [namely from God's Word] such judgment: It is nothing with you all; you are public sinners or saints, you must all become and do differently than you are and do now, you are who and how great, wise, powerful and holy as you will; here is no one pious."251) And with regard to faith, which must be added to contritio, to terrores conscientiae, it must be noted that it is likewise not to be taught from human doctrines — not even from "scientifically mediated doctrines" — of the forgiveness of sins, but only from God's doctrine, that is, from God's Word, which the Church, thank God, possesses in the Gospel written in Scripture. This then is the Gospel of God, το εναγγέλιον τον θεοΰ, to which Paul was set apart,252) which he actually proclaimed253) and which he would not allow to be changed by theologizing
249) Scripture proof2 I, 562. <w:t xml:space="preserve">250) Matt. 5:17-19. Gal. 3:10, 12.
251) Schmalk. Art. 312, 13 [Trigl. 479, 2-3 🔗]<w:t>252) Rom. 1:1.
253) Rom. 15:16.
75 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 67-68]
men, nor even by an angel from heaven..254) When this gospel of God is proclaimed and taught in the church, then there is, as Luther says, "the comforting promise of grace through the gospel.255) Through the word of the gospel Christian faith comes into being, in the word of the gospel it has its object, and in the word of the gospel it grasps the forgiveness of sins acquired by Christ. Luther: Haec est fides apprehensiva Christi, pro peccatis nostris morientis et pro iustitia nostra resurgentis. Hanc fidem Paulus praedicat, quam Spiritus Sanctus ad vocem evangelii in cordibus audientium donat et servat.256) In short, the Christian experience of sin and grace comes about, not by any direct action of God, nor by God's action in the realm of nature and history, but merely by the revelation of God in his Word. Insofar as we, being "laymen" or "theologians," disengage ourselves from the Holy Scriptures as God's own Word addressed to us, we also disengage ourselves from the Christian "experience." One appeals to events in the realm of nature and in history, through which God intervenes powerfully in our lives. Well, such events can be added, and they are added in order to externally direct man's attention to the proclamation of the Word of Christ. But the experience of sin and grace, by which a man becomes a Christian and remains a Christian, is worked only by the doctrines of the divine Word, whether the Scriptures are expressly quoted or not. Without the preaching of the Word of Christ, darkness covers the earth and darkness covers the nations, although the nations are surrounded by "history" and also abundantly "experience" God's hand in earthquakes, wars, famine, etc. "experience."257) Therefore, the Church of Christ had and has missionary duty among all peoples to the ends of the earth and to the end of days, no matter what and how much happens there in the field of history and in the kingdom of nature. For how shall they believe, of which they have heard nothing? Faith comes from the sermon, but the sermon comes through the Word of God.258)
254) Gal. 1:7-9.<w:t>255) Smalc. Art. on Repentance, 312, 4. [Trigl., 481, 4 🔗]
256) Opp. v. a. IV, 486.
257) Cf. further elaborations on this point II, 128 ff, also II, note 255; II, 536.
258) Rom. 10:14. 17.
76 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 68-69]
Furthermore, it is a self-deception when modern theology substitutes "faith" or Christian "faith consciousness" for Scripture as the source of reference for Christian doctrine, as not only the left-wing but also the right-wing newer theologians do. 259) To be sure, there is a Christian consciousness of faith and also a speaking or doctrines from this consciousness. "I believe, therefore I speak," επίστενοα, διό καί έλάλησα.260) But this Christian faith likewise conveys itself in Christianity only through faith in the apostles' word, as Christ Jn. 17:20 expressly declares that all believers will believe in him through the apostles' word until the Last Day. Faith that is not faith in the apostle's word, that does not have the apostle's word as its source and standard, but rather breaks away from this word, is ex toto, in its entirety, human imagination, as the apostle Paul expressly declares in 1 Tim. 6:3, by ascribing typhosis and ignorance to every teacher who does not remain with the sound words of Christ. Luther also says, "Faith teaches and holds the truth," but immediately adds, "For it adheres to the Scriptures, which lie and do not deceive." "Faith" and "Word of God," however, are inseparably bound together. But not in such a way that faith would be the first and doctrine the second, so that faith set doctrine, but conversely in such a way that God's Word is the first that sets and determines faith. As Luther says, "The Word of God is the first of all; faith follows it.” "That which does not have its coming [origin] from Scripture is certainly from the devil himself." By this, says Luther, that theologians have departed from Scripture, "which alone is the source of all wisdom [in theology]," have become "monsters" (portenta) of theologians, "like Thomas, Scotus, and others."261) This sharp judgment of Luther fully applies to modern theology, insofar as it does not want to let God's Word, the Holy Scriptures, be the source of knowledge and the object of faith, but makes faith
259) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 7: "Julius Kaftan and Herrmann hold this view most strongly; but also Ihmels strongly emphasizes that it can always only be 'aimed at a sharp conceptual fixation of what is immediately certain to faith'. (Central Questions, p. 101.)"
260) 2 Cor. 4:13; Ps. 116:10.
261) St. L. XI, 162; XIX, 34; XIX, 1080; I, 1289 f. Exeg. opp Lat. Erl. IV, 328.
77 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 69-70]
its own source and its own object. Some representatives of Ego theology have advanced to the adventurous assertion that the Christian religion "does not really" have to do with doctrine at all, and that therefore the Holy Scriptures are not to be understood as "a divine religious textbook"262) . This notion, they say, is a papistical remnant still clinging to the dogmaticians. And to Luther, too. Also in Meusel's "Kirchliches Handlexikon" this modern contrast between doctrine and Christian religion, which is both contrary to Scripture and unreasonable, has been taken up, when it says there: "Within the New Testament, also with the apostle Paul, it is first of all not about doctrine, but about revelation and religion. What Grau (in Zöckler, Handbuch der Theologischen Wissenschaft, 1, 561) remarks for Paulinism, that the content of the same is religion and life, not doctrinal concept or doctrinal system, applies to the whole New Testament." 263) Ihmels, too, repeatedly makes statements like this: "It must become clear how precisely the evangelical faith imposes an understanding of revelation that does not see the essential in a doctrinal communication, but in an actual outward appearance of God." 264) As if Christ's word, which we have in the word of his apostles, were not an "outward appearance" of God and a "doctrinal communication" on which alone faith, knowing the truth, is founded, as Christ expressly declares John 8: " If ye continue in My Word (λόγος), … ye shall know the truth." In more recent times, Eduard König265) has rightly warned against the enterprise of depriving faith of its object, namely, the doctrine present in Scripture, because this would abandon the biblical concept of "believe" and overturn the nature of the Christian religion as a positive religion. It is indeed an almost incomprehensible mental aberration to exclude from the Christian religion, even only "at first", the "doctrine" or the "doctrinal message"
262) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 249.
263) Kirchl. Handlexikon IV, 209, sub "Lehrbegriff".
264) Ihmels, Aus der Kirche etc., 1914, p. 18. Cf. op. cit. p. 110, 137. 144 and more.
265) In the writing "Der Glaubensakt des Christen, nach Begriff und Fundament untersucht", 1891, p. 119. Also in his latest writing, "Theologie des A. T.s.", 1921, p. 313, König comes back to this point.
78 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 70-71]
and to claim in all seriousness that not "doctrine" but "faith" is to be preached, with the added justification that only in this way "living Christianity arises and the dead orthodoxy", the "intellectualism", is resisted. The fact is that from the very beginning the Christian religion has entered the world as doctrine or doctrinal communication. Doctrine are already the words of the seed of the woman that shall bruise the serpent's head, Gen. 3:15. Yes, the apostle Paul assures us that the whole Old Testament is written to us for doctrine, εις την ήμετέραν διδασκαλίαν, προς διδασκαλίαν, Rom. 15:4; 2 Tim. 3:16. And when the time was fulfilled, and the Son of God appeared in the flesh, and walked here on earth, he himself exercised the teaching ministry. He taught from the ship (Luke 5:3), from the mountain (Matt 5:2), in the synagogues (Luke 4:15), He went through the land teaching (Matt 4:23). Christ also uses the forty days between the resurrection and the ascension for teaching (Acts 1:3), and before his ascension he gives his church the order to teach the nations until the last day: "Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you!" The apostles complied with this. The apostle Paul did not cease to teach publicly and specially (κατ' οϊκονς) the whole counsel of God, Acts 20:20, 27. And as Paul emphasizes his own teaching, so he also commands Timothy and Titus to hold fast to the doctrine they learned from him, 2 Tim. 1:13; Tit. 1:9; 2 Tim. 2:2. A bishop is to be doctrinal, διδακτικός, (1 Tim. 3:2), and the first use of Scripture is for doctrine, προς διδασκαλίαν (2 Tim. 3:16). And as the teachers in the congregations, so the congregations are to abide in the doctrine, and to keep the doctrine in exercise among themselves, Col. 3:16: "Let the word of Christ dwell among you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing yourselves;" and 2 Thess. 2:15: "Stand therefore, brethren, and hold fast the statutes which ye are taught, whether by our word or epistle." It is commended of the Christians at Jerusalem that they remained constant in the doctrines (διδαχή) of the apostles, Acts 2:42; and the apostle John considers abiding in the doctrine of Christ so important that he instructs that anyone who does not bring the doctrine of Christ should be denied Christian brotherhood, 2 Jn. 9-11. If now, nevertheless, modern theologians maintain that the Holy Scriptures, the written word of the apostles and prophets, are not to be regarded and treated as "doctrine"
79 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 71-72]
or as a "textbook" of the Christian religion, we are in any case dealing with a conception of the Christian religion which is diametrically opposed to that of Christ and his apostles and prophets.
A self-deception is also present in the calling to the “reborn EgoI" or the new man of the theologian. There is, of course, an address and doctrines from the reborn Ego or from the new man. Yes, it is God's will that all the teachers of the Church be born-again or new men, as was stated in the section "The Closer Description of Theology Conceived as Proficiency." But it is an insult to the born-again or new man to trust him with the folly of putting Scripture out of sight, even if only "at first," and looking for some other source and standard of Christian doctrine. Where this method is followed, the old man is practicing “theology”. There the revolutionary is active who overturns the foundation on which the Christian church is built, Eph. 2:20. There Nietzsche's "Übermensch" has come into theological territory. As Nietzsche places his Ego above God's moral law, "beyond good and evil," so in the theological field the modern theologian takes his position above God's Word, when he claims to have to distinguish between truth and error in Scripture and to be able to accept as truth only that which has proven itself to be truth in his ego, his "experience," etc. The new man does not do such theology. The new man in the theologian is so understanding that he recognizes the Scripture as the Word of God, subordinates himself to it unconditionally, thinks and judges only according to the "It stands written" and therefore, with Luther, lets everything drop out again that occurred to him according to the 'old man' without Scripture. The new man knows from Jn. 8:31-32 that the divine truth is only recognized by abiding in Christ's doctrine, and therefore adheres to the general rule that applies to all teachers, 1 Petr. 4:11: "If anyone speaks [namely in the Christian church], that he speak it as the Word of God." We do not deny personal Christianity to all theologians who are involved in Ego theology. There is also a "happy inconsistency" here. It also happens that one and the same theologian contradicts himself in one and the same writing, refusing on the one hand to base faith on the "doctrinal communication" of Scripture, while on the other hand actually admitting that faith without
80 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and Concept of Theology. [English ed. 72]
the word of Scripture is not faith but imagination.. But if the theologian, who is a Christian, reflects on the situation, he recognizes, according to the new man, that in the calling on "faith" or "faith-consciousness" there is a self-deception, if thereby the scriptural word is set aside as the only source and norm of theology.
There is also a great self-deception in the assertion that in determining what Christian doctrine is, it does not depend on the words (one usually says: on the "letter") of Scripture as much as on its “content”. This assertion belongs to the great number of ways of speaking that are thoughtlessly inherited from one generation to another. But with it we are asked to accept a logical and psychological impossibility. It stands like this: Since the content of Holy Scriptures, like the content of any other writing, is expressed only through the words of Scripture, its content is certain only because its words are certain and reliable. If we cannot rely on the words of Scripture, the content of Scripture, the doctrine of Scripture, also remains in the realm of conjecture. To take us out of the state of uncertainty, which is more bitter than death for souls eager for salvation,266) our Savior assures us that the Scriptures cannot be broken, and refers us expressly from His words, or, which is the same thing, to the words of His apostles. The instruction and admonition of Jn. 8 does not read: "If you abide in the content of my address", but: " If ye continue in my word" (λόγος), then ... you will know the truth. And likewise John 17:20 reads Christ's instruction not that all will believe in him through the content of the apostolic word, but through the apostolic word itself (διά λόγον μυτών). This subject will be further treated in the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, namely also in the chapter on the "variae lectiones" which are asserted against the reliability of the word of Scripture. It should only be recalled here that against the attempted separation of the content of Scripture from the word of Scripture, Christian experience also lodges a very decided protest. Addresses like this:
266) Apology, p. 191 [Trigl., 291, 31 🔗]: "For good consciences cry out for truth and right instruction from the Word of God, and to them death is not so bitter as it is bitter to them, where they doubt in one matter. Therefore they must seek where they can find instruction."
81 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 73]
"It is not the words, but the content of Scripture that matters" were created behind the safe study table. Consciences struck by the law of God. Consciences struck by the law of God can only find rest by being able to stand on the unwavering foundation on which the whole Christian church is built, namely on the word of the apostles and prophets, Eph. 2, 20, which is Christ's own word, Joh. 17:20. Lessing's sigh: "Who will deliver us from the unbearable yoke of the letter!" (namely of the word of Scripture) has been fulfilled in modern theology by means of the separation of the content of Scripture from the word of Scripture. But we remember that Lessing was not concerned with truth, but with doubt, according to his much quoted saying: if God held in his right hand all truth and in his left hand the constant search for truth, although with the addition of always and forever being wrong, he (Lessing) would choose the left hand.267) With Lessing it stood thus: "The concepts of sin and redemption do not exist for Lessing as concerning him personally, and therefore also for him a supernatural revelation (the scriptural word) is worthless."268)
A self-deception is finally also present in the calling on the “historical nature" of Christianity. Christianity, of course, has an eminently historical nature. The Scriptures testify that the eternal Son of God became man and thus entered "history". The Eternal One has become temporal. Scripture also testifies to us that this marvelous divine mystery is present at the command of the eternal God through the prophets' writings in human language269) and thus entered into "historical" appearance. But the historical appearance of Christianity in the world also includes the fact that the "revelation of salvation" with the word of Christ, which we have in the word of his apostles, is so completely finished that all subsequent "history" cannot change it in the slightest
267) In Eduard König, Der Glaubensakt, p. 63. Also in Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, by Jackson, sub "Lessing".
268) Bertheau in RE. 2 VIII, 611.
269) Rom. 16:25. 26. Of course, the same happened before the written fixation through the orally proclaimed Word of God. God accompanied his historical action for the redemption of mankind from the very beginning by his historical Word of God, so that men would not have to rely on their own views about the appearance of the Son of God in the flesh.
82 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 74]
nor should. Richard Grützmacher says quite correctly, although he himself is not completely serious about it, "that the historical revelation of salvation is contained to us only in the Holy Scriptures which reproduce it".270) If now newer theologians interpret and use the "historical nature" of Christianity in such a way as to do away with the Holy Scriptures as the only duel and norm of Christian doctrine, and to take the Christian doctrine from their own inwardness, we stand before a quite unhistorical attack on the real history, of Christianity. Therefore, calling on "history" involves self-deception. In reality, the tendency is for the "dogmatizing subject" in the Church of Christ to place himself in the chair of doctrine in place of Christ, who in his Word is the only teaching authority (εις ὁ διδάσκαλος) in the Church until the end of time. 271)
To summarize the points just discussed:
If we theological teachers do not let Scripture be God's own Word, and therefore do not use it as the only source and norm of theology, we are also not teaching God's doctrine (doctrinam divinam), but our own view (proprias opiniones). It is factually indifferent whether we call the subjective source and norm Christian experience or faith and faith consciousness or reborn Ego or historical conception of Christianity or otherwise. All paths that lead past Scripture as the only source and norm of theology lead into Ego theology, and we Christians are entitled to call out to ourselves the words of Luther already quoted: "They speak such things only so that they may lead us out of Scripture and elevate themselves to masters over us, that we should believe their dream sermons," or, as Luther formulates the expression somewhat more drastically, "that they may lead us out of Scripture, obscure the faith, lay and hatch their own eggs and become our idol.272)
Therefore, with respect to modern theology, it stands that it can claim to be recognized as Christian theology only after principled change of base. The principled change, however, consists in learning to "identify" Scripture and the Word of God again, that is, to accept it
270) Studien zur systematischen Theologie, 3. Heft, S. 40.
271) Matt. 23:8; 28:19-20; Jn. 8:31-32; 17:20.
272) St. L. V, 336.
83 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 74-75]
as God's own infallible Word according to the process of Christ and His apostles.273) From this realization, then, the only correct theological method arises of its own accord, namely, the method according to which we draw Christian doctrine neither from the Ego of other people nor from our own Ego, but fully recognize and treat the Scriptures as a "divine religious textbook" and heartily assent to the dictum: Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum. Then also the ugly scoldings of “literal theology”, “intellectualism”, “biblicism”, of the “paper pope” together with the doctrinal law fallen from heaven, etc. will disappear. These diatribes are replaced by the realization and confession that the doctrine created from the Scriptures, because it is God's own doctrine, doctrina divina, will also certainly be able to gain inner recognition and thus, instead of "dead orthodoxy", convey living, "life-warming" Christianity. Likewise, the mockery of "pure doctrines", which appears in several forms, falls silent. The derision is replaced by the recognition that pure doctrine (ύγιαίνονσα διδασκαλία) is the only kind of doctrine that is decent to a Christian teacher according to divine order.274) This realization primarily creates three virtues in the theologian: 1. He will despair of all his own wisdom and approach the Scriptures in the humble spirit expressed by the words, "Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth." (1 Sam. 3:9) 2. Because Scripture is the only textbook of Christian doctrine even for the theologian, he will assimilate and faithfully reproduce the divine doctrine revealed in Scripture by faith as the only medium cognoscendi. He will ask God to keep him from mixing the straw of his own ideas into the wheat of divine thoughts (Jer. 23:28). 3. By God's grace he will gain courage and joy to claim sole authority for the doctrine drawn from the Scriptures, because it is God's doctrine, and thus to resist in his part indifferentism and thus chaos in doctrine. As for the last point, courage and joyfulness, Theodor Kaftan275) occasionally told the people whom he still assigned to the "old theological" camp
273) Jn. 10:35; Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Luke 24:25, 44-46; Jn. 17:12; Matt. 26:54; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Tim. 3:15-16; 2 Thess. 2:15.
274) 2 Tim. 1:13: νποτύπωαιν εχε νγιαινόντων λόγων, ών παρ' εμον ηκονσας; Tit. 1:9: δυνατός … παρακαλεΐν εν τῃ διδαακαλία τῃ υγιαινοΰαῃ.
275) Moderne Theologie des Alten Glaubens, 1906, p. 120 f.
84 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 75-76]
with "a lack of joyfulness and strength". He states. "Viewed as a whole, a certain despondency spreads in many cases in the old-theological camp, a feeling of weakness, i.e. “we cannot.” If this is really the case, then to the despondent people in the old-theological camp, the conviction that Scripture is God's own infallible Word by inspiration has taken a back seat under the printing of the spirit of the age. But as soon as they reflect on what their faith and the faith of all Christianity on earth is based on, Eph. 2:20, and what they inevitably need in the challenge from within and without, they will again, according to the instruction of Christ and His apostles, joyfully speak the γέγραπται, "It is written!" and repeat Luther's word: "The word they shall let stand!" not merely outwardly, but from the bottom of their hearts. They will then also know how to correctly protect and classify the "greater joyfulness" that Theodor Kaftan perceives in himself and other modern theologians, namely as the typhosis described in 1 Tim. 6:3, which is exemplified in its historical appearance by the pope and the enthusiasts of all times. Omnis fiducia vana est, quae non nititur Verbo Dei, 276) unb: Deus solo suo Verbo voluit suam voluntatem, sua consilia deformari nobis, non nostris conceptibus et imaginationibus.277)