2. Fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines.
Obviously, the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines cannot have the purpose of dispensing with the acceptance of certain doctrines that stand in Scripture. This is allowed for no man and is expressly forbidden in Scripture. This is true both of the distinction between fundamental and nonfundamental doctrines and of the further distinction between primary and secondary fundamentals. Christ's commission to His Church is to this effect: "Teach them to keep all that I have commanded you, διδάσκοντες αντονς τηρεΐν πάντα δσα ένετειλάμην νμΐν.310) Likewise, in the Old Testament, men were forbidden to add to or subtract from the written word.311) Thus it is also said at the same time that nothing in Scripture is to be declared superfluous or useless; for δσα προεγράφη, εις την ήμετεραν διδασκαλίαν εγράφη.312) Nevertheless, the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines is justified according to Scripture. Also, this distinction has great practical value, as will be seen from this whole exposition.
In what sense the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines is scripturally and practically important is recognized when we juxtapose, for example, the doctrines of Christ and of the anti-Christ. Both doctrines stand in Scripture. However, they stand in a completely different relationship to the origin of the saving faith. The doctrine of Christ forms the foundation of this faith, because saving faith has as its object Christ in His vicarious satisfaction, or is faith in Christ, Gal. 3:26: "Ye are all the children of God διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν χριστῷ ἰησοῦ." The doctrine of the Antichrist, on the other hand, does not stand in this fundamental relationship to the Christian faith. Scripture does not say that a man obtains forgiveness of sins and salvation through the knowledge of the Antichrist, as it consistently says of the knowledge of Christ or of faith in Christ both in the Old and New Testaments. That nevertheless the teaching of the Antichrist is not in vain in the Scriptures, but serves the saving faith insofar as it warns of dangers threatening the
310) Matt. 28:20. Accordingly, Paul Acts 20:27.
311) Jos. 1:8; Deut. 17:19.
312) Rom. 15:4 and 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Cor. 10:11; Rom. 4:23-24.
90 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 81]
Christian faith through the seduction of the Antichrist, is obvious and will be explained in more detail later. Here it should only be recalled that even the old Lutheran teachers did not make the doctrine of the anti-Christ a "fundamental article," as was probably ascribed to them. Rather, they expressly declared that before and even after the revelation of the Antichrist by the Reformation, there were and are many Christians who did not recognize the Antichrist in the papacy.
If we want to define here the term "fundamental doctrines" in distinction from non-fundamental doctrines, it is a question of which doctrines the Scriptures give as foundation to the Christian faith. What are these doctrines?
It is well known that especially in our time, in the interest of doctrinal freedom, it is claimed that the term "fundamental doctrines" cannot be clearly defined, as experience sufficiently proves. Thus, for example, the theologian Hofmann from Erlangen thinks that "about the difference between fundamental and non-fundamental there has been a fruitless dispute until this day".313) On the other hand, we can remain uncertain about the articuli fundamentales only as long as we do not hold on to the scriptural concept of the object of saving faith. The saving faith which Scripture teaches is faith in the forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ's satisfactio vicaria; in other words, faith in divine justification without works of the law, by faith. Only he who believes this forgiveness of sins or justification through the action of the Holy Spirit is faithful in Christ in the sense of the Scriptures.314) and a member of the Christian Church.315) Whoever does not believe this doctrine is, according to the very certain statement of Scripture, outside the number of believers or outside the Christian church.316) This is where Luther's words belong: Hic locus [iustificationis] caput et angularis lapis est, qui solus ecclesiam gignit, nutrit, aedificat, servat, defendit; ac sine eo ecclesia Dei non potest una hora subsistere.317) Furthermore: Quotquot sunt in mundo, qui eam
313) Schriftbeweis 2 I, 9. 10.
314) Gal. 2:16: "Knowing (είδότες) that by works of the law a man is not justified, but by faith in Jesus Christ, we also believe in Jesus Christ."
315) Acts 5:14: Προοετίΰεντο [to the congregation] πιατενοντες τω κνρίω.
316) Gal. 3:6-10.<w:t xml:space="preserve">317) Opp. v. a. VII, 512; St. L. XIV, 168.
91 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 81-82]
[namely doctrinam iustificationis] non tenent, snnt vel Indaei vel Turcae vel Papistae vel haeretici.318) The dogmatists call the doctrine of justification articulum omnium fundamentalissimum.319)
The Scriptures, however, instruct us very emphatically, and in detail on individual doctrines, as to what doctrines faith in the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake presupposes and includes.
1. Scripture teaches very clearly that saving faith presupposes the knowledge of sin and the consequence of sin, eternal damnation. Where this knowledge of sin, that is, the knowledge of one's own worthiness for damnation, is not present, but there is still trust in one's own worthiness, there can be no faith in the divine forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake. Therefore, according to the teaching method prescribed by Christ, repentance first and then forgiveness of sins should be preached among all peoples.320) Christ also illustrates this by the example of the Pharisee and tax collector. Christ very decisively rejects the faith of the Pharisee, who was not guilty of God's wrath and condemnation, but thanked God that he was not like other people, that is, considered himself better before God than robbers, the unjust, adulterers, or even like that tax collector.321) This is where all the scriptural statements about "broken hearts" belong, where God comes in and dwells with His grace.322)
2. The Scriptures further teach very definitely that saving faith includes in itself the knowledge of the person of Christ, namely, the belief that Christ is θεάνθρωπος, God and man. The question of Christ Matt. 22:42: "How think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He?" has not merely "intellectual" but a very practical value. That without faith in the essential deity of Christ there is no faith in Christ is said by Christ Himself. He rejects the faith of the Jewish publicans, who thought he was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or the prophets, and confirms the faith of his disciples, who had recognized him as the Son of the living God through the Father's
318) Ad Gal. Erl. 1, 20; St. L. IX, 29.
319) The quotations in Baier-Walther III, 245 sq.
320) Luke 24:47.<w:t>321) Luke 18:9-14.
322) Is. 66:2; 57:15; Ps. 34:19; 51:19; Luke 4:18.
92 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 82-83]
revelation.323) Where one wants to call Christ God honoris causa at best, but does not want to let him be the eternal true God, there can be no saving faith. The Unitarians and the modern theologians who walk on Unitarian paths have their location extra ecclesiam according to the Scriptures.324) As for the Trinity, or the knowledge that the unus Deus is Father, Son, Holy Spirit, according to Scripture, faith in the three persons is intertwined in such a way that there is no knowledge of the Son without the Father325) and no knowledge of the Father without the Son,326) and no one can call the Father Father and call the Son a Lord without the Holy Spirit.327) — It has been objected that we could not trust the first Christians with a "reflection" on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One has gone so far as to want to prove "the non-historicity of the Matthean command to baptize" (baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) also from this assumed ignorance of the first Christians. With this alone, modern theology blames its own deficit in Christian knowledge quite unhistorically on the first Christians.328) About the revelation of the Trinity also in the Old Testament follows a special section at the doctrine of God (De Deo).
3) The fides salvifica also includes the knowledge of the work of Christ. According to Scripture, Christ is the object of fides salvifica, not in so far as he is teacher of the divine law, nor in so far as he is perfect model of virtue, but in so far as he is the mediator between God and men, who gave himself for all for redemption (άντίλυτρον), or in so far as he is God's Lamb who bears the sin of the world.329) Whoever does not believe Christ's satisfactio vicaria does not believe in Christ in the sense of Scripture, but rather — tertium non datur — somehow bases his reconciliation with God on his own doing or his own worthiness, and separates himself eo ipso from the grace acquired by Christ, as Scripture
323) Matt. 16:13-17; — 1 John 1:1-4.
324) 1 John 5:12-13, Apol. p. 77.
325) Matt. 16:17; 11:27a.<w:t>326) Matt. 11:27b.
327) Rom. 8:15; 1 Cor. 12:3; Jn. 16:13-15.
328) This point is treated in more detail in the doctrine of baptism, III, 297 ff.
329) 1 Tim. 2:5. 6; Jn. 1:29.
93 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 83-84]
explicitly teaches doctrines.330) That within such fellowships, which forbid the forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ's perfect merit as the foundation of the saving faith (Rome), believing children of God are nevertheless found, is due to the fact that these, against the church's prohibition, place their trust before God only in Christ crucified for their sins. The Apology therefore takes as its starting point the fact that the Roman Church errs in the foundation of the Christian faith:331) "Many of the articles of our adversaries destroy the right foundation, the knowledge of Christ and faith. For they reject and condemn the high, greatest article, since we say that we obtain forgiveness of sins through Christ by faith alone, without any works. On the other hand, they teach to trust in our works to earn forgiveness of sins, and instead of Christ they substitute their works, orders, mass, just as the Jews, heathens and Turks with their own works plan to be saved. Item, they doctrines, the sacraments make pious ex opere operato, without faith. Whoever does not consider faith necessary has already lost Christ. Item, they direct saint service, call them out instead of Christ as mediator." On the other hand, the same Apology remarks: Mansit tamen apud aliquos pios semper cognitio Christi.332)
4 Scripture also teaches that saving faith is always faith in the word of Christ. What is meant is the external word of the gospel, which Christ commanded his church to preach and teach.333) This word is both the object of faith, πιστεύετε έν τω εναγγελίφ,334) and the means whereby faith comes into being, ή πίστις έξ ακοής.335) Scripture rejects faith that does not have Christ's word, present in the word of His apostles (John 17:20), as its object and is not wrought by that word. It describes such faith as a conceit and a non-knowledge and as a human workmanship (πίστις ... έν σοφία άνϑρώπων).336) Luther calls the faith that is not based on the external word a faith "in the air"?337) That
330) Gal. 5:4: κατηργήΰητε άπό τοϋ Χρίστου … της χάριτος εξεπέσατε.
331) M. 156, 22. [Trigl. 233, 21 🔗]<w:t>332) M. 151, 271. [Trigl. 225, 271 🔗]
333) Mark. 16:15-16; Rom. 1:1-2<w:t xml:space="preserve"> 334) Mark. 1:15.
335) Rom. 10:17.<w:t>336) 1 Tim. 6:3; 1 Cor. 2:1-5.
337) Cf. the detailed exposition II, 535, under the section "The saving faith is faith in the grace offered in the word of the Gospel". When ancient dogmatists distinguished between the fundamentum
94 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 84-85]
within the church fellowships that officially reject the external Word of Christ as the medium of forgiveness of sins, there are nevertheless faithful children of God, comes from the fact that there are always a number of souls who, in contradiction with the official doctrine, base their faith on the external Word.338)
The Scriptures deny the Christian faith to all who deny the bodily resurrection of the dead and eternal life. As is well known, recently also leaders of the Interchurch World Movement wanted to persuade church and world that it is enough to believe in Christ in this life; the hereafter, the resurrection including heaven and hell, can be left alone.339) So essentially also the liberal Protestant theology, which carries out the detachment of the Christian doctrine from the Holy Scriptures more consistently than the "positive" trend. Horst Stephan says of the belief in the resurrection: "It is filled with an interest in the human body and its transfigured entrance into eternity, which has no absolutely necessary connection with the Christian faith, but sometimes appears rather as an after-effect of the Jewish belief in retribution." 340) The Holy Scriptures say of those who, like Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus, rejected the future bodily resurrection of the dead and wished to "spiritualize" it (λέγοντες την άνάστασιν ήδη γεγονέναι), that they were shipwrecked in the faith and lacked the truth περί την πίστιν ενανάγηααν — περί την αλήθειαν ήοτόχηοαν).341) And as to their relation to the Christian church, the apostle denies them membership in the church, saying, Όνς παρέδωκα τφ αατανα, that they may be chastened and blaspheme
substantiale (Christ) and the fundamentum organicum (the word of the gospel of Christ), they do not teach a double foundation of faith. Hollaz (Examen, Proleg., a. 2, qu. 19) explicitly points out that Christ, the fundamentum substantiale, becomes the foundation of faith through the word of Christ, the fundamentum substantiale. The newer theologians are different. Because they reject the word of Christ's apostles and prophets as the word of God, they want to base faith on "Christ's person," on "the living Christ," etc., leaving aside the word of Scripture. But whoever believes past Christ's word, believes eo ipso also past the "living Christ".
338) The more detailed exposition II, 535 ff. On the "happy inconsistency" in the Reformed fellowships III, 188 ff.
339) The evidence in L. u. W. 67, 1 ff. 340) Glaubenslehre, 1921, p. 119.
341) 1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18.
95 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 85-86]
no more.342) And when some of the Corinthians said that "the resurrection of the dead is nothing",343) the apostle instructs them that they do not know anything about God344) and deny the whole Christian religion, which includes the belief in the resurrection of the dead.345)
When we thus speak of "fundamental doctrines", which faith in the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake necessarily presupposes in part and includes in part, it is self-evident that the church-dogmatic formulation of these doctrines is not meant. The ancient dogmatists also amply reminded us of this;346) likewise Luther, when he explains in detail that the councils with their ecclesiastical terminis "did not establish anything new in the faith," but only "preserved through Holy Scriptures" the old faith that Christians hold before all councils. Luther also refers this to the Nicene Creed. Christians have always believed the coessential deity of Christ before the terminus όμοούσιος came into reception towards Arius.347)