Primary and Secondary Fundamental Teachings.
This further division of the fundamental doctrines need not frighten anyone either. It is not an invention of orthodox dogmatics, but factually justified and practically important. For example, in the disputes between the Lutheran and Reformed churches, it has also been negotiated whether baptism and the Lord's Supper belong to the foundation of the Christian faith.348) The Scriptures decide this question. On the basis of Scripture, we must say that besides the word of the gospel, both
342) Huther on the words ονς παρεδωκα τφ σατανά: "The same excommunication of which the apostle speaks 1 Cor. 5:5."'
343) 1 Cor. 15:12: άνάστασις νεκρών ονκ εστιν.
344) 1 Cor. 15:34: αγνωσίαν ϑεον τινες εχονσιν. Christ judges the same of the Sadducees Matt. 22:29: "Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God."
345) The entire 15th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians belongs here. The detailed exposition of the scriptural doctrine of the resurrection of the dead III, 600 ff.
346) Baier-Walther I, 61, note e.
347) "Von Konziliis u. Kirchen," St. L. XVI, 2233. 2214.
348) Cf. on the literature II, note 647. Apart from Nikolaus Hunnius' Διάσκεψις Theologica de Fundamentali Dissensu (1626), Jn. Hülsemann's Calvinismus Irreconciliabilis (1646) belongs primarily here. The entire literature also from the Reformed side in Walch, Bibliotheca Theologica II, 486 ff.
96 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 86]
sacraments are also given as a foundation to faith in the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake. Baptism takes place εις Άφεοιν άμαρτιών,349) and in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are presented as υπέρ υμών διδόμενον and υπέρ υμών έκχννόμενον εϊς αφεοιν άμαρτιών.350) Thus, if in both sacraments there is a promise or presentation of the forgiveness of sins, faith is also to be based on these sacraments,351) and Baptism and the Lord's Supper are therefore rightly reckoned among the fundamental doctrines. However, a person can err in the knowledge of Baptism and the Lord's Supper out of weakness and still stand in faith in the forgiveness of sins, if he keeps to the word of the gospel he has heard or read. The reason is that the word of the gospel offers the whole forgiveness of sins acquired from Christ, and baptism and the Lord's Supper offer the same grace only in a different and especially comforting form (verbum visibile — applicatio individualis). It therefore stands thus: Whoever does not recognize and need baptism and the Lord's Supper as means of grace has less support for his faith in God, who is gracious for Christ's sake, than God has intended for him. Nevertheless, if he believes the word of the gospel, he has through this faith the entire forgiveness of sins and thus also salvation. So it stands with all God's children in the Reformed church fellowships who, under the guidance of their dead and living teachers, do not recognize and use Baptism and the Lord's Supper as God-ordained means of justification because of weakness in knowledge. Both Luther352) and the Preface to the Book of Concord353) draw attention to this. Such doctrines as Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which by their nature should also form the basis of faith in the forgiveness of sins, but which are not necessarily required for this faith, because it already has the necessary support elsewhere (through the word of the gospel), have not inappropriately been called articuli fundamentales secundarii. Thus Quenstedt also counts the doctrine of the sacraments among the articles, qui non simpliciter fundamentales seu causa salutis sunt, ad fundamentum tamen pertinent.354)
349) Acts 2:38.<w:t>350) Luke 22:19 ff.; Matt. 26:26 ff.
351) The detailed exposition in the doctrine of baptism under the section "The Grace-Medium Character of Baptism (Baptismal Grace)" III 308 ff.
352) St. L. XVII, 2212.<w:t>353) M., p. 17 ff. [Trigl. 19 ff. 🔗]
354) Systema I, 355.
97 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 87]
It follows from this that restraint is in order when it comes to judging the personal state of faith of individuals who deny secondary fundamental articles. On the one hand, of course, it must be said: Whoever denies secondary fundamental articles consequently also overturns the primary ones because of the close connection that exists between them. We can also illustrate this with the doctrines of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Whoever denies that God can give forgiveness of sins through baptism and the Lord's Supper because baptism and the Lord's Supper are only external means, must consequently also deny the forgiveness of sins through the Word of the Gospel because the Gospel is equally an external means. Another example: He who denies the communication of attributes (communicatio idiomatnm) in Christ on the basis of the axiom that the finite is incapable of the infinite (Finitum non est capax infiniti), consequently denies also the communication of the divine person of the Son of God to human nature, that is, he denies the incarnation (incarnatio) of the Son of God. But experience teaches that there is a "happy inconsistency" here, primarily among the so-called laity, but also among teachers and learned theologians. As we have to remind repeatedly, logic is in a bad way with us men after the Fall, and this logic is moreover worsened in the dispute by excited passions. Luther's relatively mild judgment of Nestorius is based on this. Luther famously says: "Although now, to speak thoroughly, it must follow from Nestorius’s opinion that Christ is a pure man and two persons, yet it was not his opinion. For the coarse, unlearned man did not see that he was pretending impossible things, that he at the same time earnestly held Christ to be God and man in one person, and yet did not want to admit the idiomata of the natures of the same person of Christ. He wants to believe the first to be true, but that should not be true, which follows from the first. So that he indicates that he himself does not understand what he denies."355) Luther gives further examples of this because "such lack of understanding is not strange in the world."356) The Roman doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass in itself overturns the foundation of faith, sola gratia. But some people have not understood this consequence for themselves, for their person.
355) St. L. XVI, 2230.<w:t xml:space="preserve">356) St. L. XVI, 2238.
98 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 87-88]
Luther wrote at the end of 1521 in his writing "On the Abuse of the Mass". At the end of the year 1521, Luther wrote in his book "On the Abuse of the Mass": "It undoubtedly still happens to many pious Christians that they keep the mass in a simple faith of their heart and think that it is a sacrifice. But because they do not rely on the sacrifice [before God], indeed, they take it for granted that everything they do is sin, and cling to the pure mercy of God alone, they are preserved so that they do not perish in this error."357) Luther further writes in 1539 in his writing "Of the Councils and Churches": "Now there are many great lords and learned men who freely and firmly confess that our doctrine of faith, which makes justified without merit by pure grace, is right; but that one should therefore leave and despise monasticism and saintly service or the like, that strikes them upside the head, if it nevertheless enforces the consequence. For no one can become righteousness without faith; from this it follows that one cannot become righteous through monastic life." Yes, Luther "takes himself by the nose" and cites his own person as an example of inconsistency. He had already taught twenty years ago "that faith alone without works makes one justified," and yet he still held hard to monasticism and nunnery. In justification he adds, "I, thoughtless fool, could not see the consequence that I should yield, that where faith alone did it, monasticism and Mass could not."358) Of synergism, as opposed to Erasmus' facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, Luther judges that it encourages man to trust in his own ability in matters of attaining salvation, thereby making Christian faith in the forgiveness of sins without works of the law impossible.359) At the same time, Luther admits the possibility of a happy inconsistency in individual persons, namely, that while in theory, in writings and disputations, they still ascribe to man a faculty in spiritual matters, in practice, "as often as they come before God to pray to him or to act with him, they go along in utter forgetfulness of their free will, despairing of themselves and asking nothing for themselves
357) St. L. XIX, 1131.<w:t xml:space="preserve">358) St. L. XVI, 2238.
359) Opp. v. a. VII, 154: Quamdiu [homo] persuasus fuerit, sese vel tantulum posse pro salute sua, manet in fiducia sui, nec de se penitus desperat, ideo non humiliatur coram Deo, sed locum, tempus, opus aliquod sibi praesumit, vel sperat, vel optat saltem, quo tandem perveniat ad salutem.... [Google]
99 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 88-89]
but mere grace"?360) We find similar pronouncements in later Lutheran theologians. Thus Hülsemann says that not every false doctrine, which by its nature destroys the foundation of faith, has this effect also on every erring individual, because there may be precisely a "happy inconsistency."361)
This concession has been and still is much abused in the interest of indifferentism. Therefore, it must be clearly recognized and held that the "happy inconsistency", by virtue of which, through God's special preservation, an erring person does not fall out of the faith, can never give error itself a right to exist in the Christian church. Roman theologians allowed themselves this erroneous conclusion in their fight against Luther. When Luther insisted that the Roman errors were to be dismissed, it was countered that the doctrines Luther called errors had also been put forward by "saints," even by those saints whom Luther himself counted among the true children of God. This Roman way of arguing is repeated in the church as often as a calling on the fathers of the Lutheran church takes place for the purpose of securing a right in the church for aberrations of the fathers against the testimony of Scripture. Those who, in order to protect erroneous doctrines, refer to the case of pious fathers in error, are pointed out by Luther to the possibility that they may follow the pious fathers, "but they will not with them at the end."362) It is an exceedingly serious matter about teaching in God's house, the Christian church. Those who stand in this office should never forget: 1. Nowhere and no one is given license in Scripture to deviate from God's Word on any point. Rather, as house rules for the Christian church until the Last Day, "Teach them to keep all that I have commanded you!" 363) 2. Any deviation from Christ's word, which the Church has in the word of His apostles, is expressly called an offence (σκάνδαλον ποιέΐν).364) The error, which can be harmless to the first erring person through God's special preservation,
360) St. L. XVIII, 1730. Erl. Opp. V. a. VII, 166.
361) Calvinismus Irreconciliabilis, p. 432; quotes Baier-Walther 1, 62: Non omne dogma, quod ex sua natura aliquod fidei necessario praesuppositum aut eam consequens astruit vel destruit, idem in hominis cuiusque mente illud efficit. [Google]
362) St. L. XIX. 1133.<w:t>363) Matt. 28:20.<w:t>364) Rom. 16:17.
100 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 89-90]
is and remains a nuisance for others, who do not discount the error in themselves, but take it as it reads, carry it on and even cause further division in the church with reference to the "Fathers". In order to dismiss as far as possible the offence that deviation from Word of God naturally causes, public teachers have felt the need to publicly recant errors that were presented earlier. This is why Augustine wrote his Retractationes,365) and why Luther also asks that his early writings be read "with much mercy" because they are not yet completely free of Roman erroneous doctrines.366) Anyone who sets aside the testimony of Scripture in one doctrine is in fact calling into question the whole principle of Christian knowledge, even if he himself is not clearly aware of it. We must not forget that all the articles of Christian doctrine have a fellowship and an indivisible principle of knowledge, namely, the word of Holy Scriptures. If, then, for reasons of "unthinkability," irrationality, or other causes inherent in our ego, we set aside the authority of Scripture in certain doctrines, e.g., in the doctrines of Baptism, of the Lord's Supper, of conversion, of the Election of Grace, of the inspiration of Scripture, etc., we consequently also set aside the authority of Scripture when it tells us of the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world, and of the blood of Christ which makes us clean from all sin.367) Luther looks to this when he says warningly, "The Holy Spirit [who speaks in all the doctrines of Scripture] cannot be separated nor divided, that He should make one part teach true and the other false, or make it believe."368) To be sure, Luther also adds here, "Without where there are weak ones who are willing to be instructed and not stiff-necked to contradict." Among the weak who are ready to be instructed are all those in whose hearts still dwells faith in the
365) In the prologue to his Rectractationes, Augustine speaks about the motive in this way: De tam multis disputationibus meis sine dubio multa colligi possunt, quae, si non falsa, at certe videantur, sive etiam convincantur non necessaria. Quem vero Christus fidelium suorum non terruit, ubi ait: Omne verbum otiosum quodcunque dixerit homo, reddet pro eo rationem in die iudicii. [Google] Then he continues: Restat igitur, ut me ipsum iudicem sub magistro uno, cuius de offensionibus meis iudicium evadere cupio. [Google] Ed. basil. I, 1.
366) Opp. v. a. I, 15; St. L. XIV, 439; XIX, 293. 296 and often.
367) Jn. 1:29; 1 Jn. 1:7.<w:t xml:space="preserve">368) St. L. XX, 1781.
101 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 90-91]
forgiveness of sins acquired from Christ. But the situation is always binding with danger even for the weak, especially when controversies arise. Luther rightly reminds us that not only secular but also spiritual wars are dangerous. Even spiritual wars are not without wounded and dead. The climax of danger occurs when in doctrinal controversies the clear word of Scripture is brought to the fore and error is held against this word of Scripture, in which the Holy Spirit is active. Then the case can arise that the " erring Christian", that is, the erring out of weakness, while faith still exists, ceases and the "unchristian erring" or the will to err sets in, which makes faith impossible.369) This is then the case described thus, Tit. 3:10-11: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself," αμαρτάνει ών αυχοκατάκριτος.370) 4. Nor should we forget that, as every sin in the field of morals,371) so also every error in the field of doctrine has a tendency to prevail, that is, to involve other doctrines and finally to corrupt the whole doctrine. This is what the apostle means when he says Gal. 5:9 that a little leaven will leaven the whole dough.372) Luther looks to this tendency of every error when he compares Christian doctrine to a ring that is no longer whole when it has only one fracture, and further says of the articles of Christian doctrine "that one article is all and all articles are one, and that when one is lost, gradually all are lost. "373) The church history of all times provides the evidence for this.
369) Luther's classic dictum regarding "Christian error": "You cannot speak: I want to err Christianly. A Christian error happens out of ignorance." (St. L. XIX, 1132.)
370) The αντοκατάχριτος, which occurs only here, cannot be misunderstood at all. It denotes inward self-condemnation, suopte iudicio condemnatus. Word of God held up to him condemned him, and this condemnation he himself felt in his conscience. Huther z. St.: "He sins with consciousness of his guilt and condemnation."
371) 1 Cor. 5:6. Therefore 2 Cor. 7, 1 the exhortation to purification από παντός μολνσμον οαρκός και πνεύματος.
372) Meyer, like Luther and our old theologians, also refers to Gal. 5:9 to the area of doctrines.
373) On Gal. 5:9. St. L. IX, 642 ff.
102 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 91-92]
The "happy inconsistency" is followed by the "unhappy consequence". Thus, the rejection of baptism and the Lord's Supper as means of grace has led Reformed people to consistently reject even the external word of the gospel as a means of grace, to retreat to an imagined "immediate inner enlightenment," and then to fall prey to perfected rationalism. For other Reformed people, the denial of the possibility of the communication of the attributes in the person of Christ led to the denial of the incarnation of the Son of God, namely, to Socinianism.374) Within the Lutheran Church, the vacillating position of the later Melanchthon is also due to the fact that Melanchthon thought that for the salvation of common grace he had to insert synergism (the "different behavior") into the Christian order of salvation. From this error, his clear view of Christian truth became so clouded that he collaborated on the Leipzig Interim, a document that G. Plitt characterizes as: "A real mockery, indeed a denial of the Reformation and the Evangelical Church. Deeply disgruntled, Melanchthon returned to Wittenberg." 375)