3. Open questions and theological problems.
Open questions are not those on which men cannot agree, nor those on which there is not yet a symbolic decision, but only those questions which Holy Scriptures themselves do not answer and eo ipso leave open.
It is obvious that the Holy Scriptures are set aside as the source and norm of Christian doctrine, if only that is to be considered generally binding Christian doctrine on which men can agree. Thereby Christ's word: "Teach them to keep all that I have commanded you!".is converted into the instruction: "Teach them to keep what you can obtain human consent for!". This thought, which is contrary to Scripture, is the basis of the many attempts to bring about church unions without unity in Christian doctrines. We have examples of this in the "Evangelical Alliance" (since 1846), in the Reformed Church, which (Zwingli and Calvin included) has always shown a tendency to unite with the Evangelical Church without eliminating doctrinal differences. The most recent example of church merger without actual agreement on doctrine is present in this country in the United Lutheran Church ("Merger Synods"). 381) The same setting aside of the Scriptural principle is encountered when newer Lutherans express the strange view that only those doctrines are to be regarded and treated as binding in the Lutheran Church on which there is a decision in the symbolic books of the Lutheran Church. This is, in substance, the Roman error, which Luther rejects with the well-known words: "The Christian church has no power [i.e., not even the Lutheran church] to set some articles of faith, never has, never will."382) This is what the Dorpat report of 1866 comes to.383)
On the other hand, it is to be noted that all such questions are to be recognized as open ones, which may well suggest themselves when thinking about the doctrines present in Scripture, but which are either not answered at all or not answered clearly in Scripture. That open
381) Cf. F. Bente, American Lutheranism, II, p. 9. The same unionism and indifferentism was found in the earlier General Synod, pp. 19. 48. 170, the General Council, pp. 195. 224, and the United Synod in the South, pp. 232 ff.
382) Erl. 31, 122. opp. v. a. IV, 373; St. L. XIX, 958.
383) For more on this, see the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures under the section "Scripture and Symbols".
105 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 94]
questions are to be acknowledged in this sense is clear from all scriptural statements in which adding to God's word is forbidden.384) Every true theologian must learn not only to address, but also to be silent. He should speak where and insofar as God's Word speaks, but also be silent where God's Word is silent, that is, gives no information. If he does not learn this art of silence, but allows himself to speak where God's Word is silent, then the word applies to him: "Thus says the Lord of hosts: Do not obey the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They deceive you, for they preach to the face of their heart, and not out of the Lord's mouth."385) Open questions in this sense are also called "theological problems", namely problems in the sense that they cannot be solved in the Church here on earth, because the divine solution through the Holy Scriptures is missing here. This is the meaning of the old dictum that a theologian can answer many questions with a clear conscience: "I don't know", nescio.
The theological problems in this sense include, for example, the question of how sin could arise, since all creatures, including all angels, were originally created good.386) Here also the question can be counted whether the soul of the child is created each time directly by God (Creatianism) or is transferred from the parents to the child, thus indirectly created by God (Traduzianism).387) Among the unsolvable problems in this life
384) Deut. 4:2; 12:32; 1 Pet. 4:11.
385) Jer. 23:16; also 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.
386) The attempt to solve this problem has led to dualism in its various forms, also to the denial of sin. Nitzsch-Stephan, Ev. Dogmätik 3, p. 438. More about this in the doctrine of God.
387) Detailed dogma-historical treatment of this question, which has been dealt with a lot namely in the Pelagian disputes and then also later, in Chemnitz, Loci, 1. De Peccato Originis, ed. 1599, I, 567 sqq. about Luther's position on this question Chemnitz says: Lutherus in disputationibus conclusit, se publice nihil velle affirmare de ista quaestione, sed privatim apud se tenere sententiam de traduce. Merito autem reprehendendos esse Pontificios, qui in re obscura, sine manifestis Scripturae testimoniis, temeraria auctoritate condiderunt articulum fidei ad eversionem purioris doctrinae de peccato originis. Chemnitz expresses his own opinion in the following words: Haec de quaestione illa volui annotare, quia usitata est et iudico sobriam eius explicationem aliquid conferre ad intelligendam causam efficientem [namely, original sin].... Et discamus ex hoc exemplo pie et firmiter fundata simplicitate praecidere tales quaestiones, quae non sine periculo fidei subtilius disputantur. Satis ergo sit de causa efficiente
106 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 95]
is also the so-called crux theologorum, namely, the question that arises, as the Formula of Concord reminds us, in the face of the fact: "One is hardened, blinded, given to a perverse mind; another, so well in like guilt (in eadem culpa), is again converted." 388) The Formula of Concord warns against trying to answer this question in this life. It refers the answer to the eternal life,389) The right judgment will therefore be this: All theologians who really want to close open questions in theology or really want to solve theological problems act a. contrary to Scripture, because they do not stay with 1 Petr. 4:11: Εΐ τις λαλεϊ, ώς λόγια θεοϋ; b. unscientifically, because they pretend to a knowledge they do not possess. According to Jn. 8:31-32 all Christian knowledge of truth is imparted by abiding in Christ's word. According to 1 Tim. 6:3, what is claimed to be knowledge of truth without abiding in the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ belongs to the realm of imagination or ignorance (τετνφωται, μη επιοτάμενος).
scire, primos parentes lapsu suo meritos esse, ut quales ipsi erant post lapsum et corpore et anima, tales procrearentur omnes posteri. Quomodo autem malum illud contrahat anima, salva fide potest ignorari, quia Spiritus Sanctus non voluit hoc certis et perspicuis Scripturae testimoniis patefacere. [Google] Cf. also Baier's brief dogma-historical remarks I, 67, nota c; furthermore Luthardt, Dogmatik. 11, p. 168 f.
388) M. 716, 57 [Trigl. 1081, 57 🔗].
389) The attempt to answer this question has led, on the one hand, to Calvinism (denial of universalis gratia), and on the other hand, to semipelagianism and synergism (denial of sola gratia). It goes without saying that not the question itself, which has been asked in multiple forms (cur alii, alii non; cur non omnes; cur alii prae aliis) and pretty much at all times (also by Luther and the old Lutheran theologians), involves sin and error. Sin and error have been taught by those who, with Melanchthon, the father of synergism within the Lutheran Church, have answered the question by means of "different behavior". Also the Formula of Concord places its statement: "One is hardened etc., another, so well in the same guilt, is converted again" [Trigl. 1081, 57 🔗] among the questions, when it says: "In these and similar questions," etc. But it warns against answering the question when it adds: "In these and similar questions Paul sets for us a certain goal (certas metas), how far we are to go, namely only so far that we are to recognize God's judgment in the one part, ... which we all would have deserved well," and that we, the other part, "recognize and praise God's goodness without and against our merit ... and praise" because God "does not harden and reject us, who are nevertheless in the same guilt”. Cf. the detailed exposition in the doctrine of conversion (II, 285 ff. [sic: II, 585 ff.]) and in the doctrine of the Election of Grace (III, 566 ff.).
107 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 95-96]
If we thus hold the scriptural concept of open questions and theological problems, it is obvious that it would be foolish to spend much time and energy on their treatment. After describing theological problems as things that lack scriptural testimony, Reusch adds, Inutilis est eorum cognitio, et vanae sunt de eisdem disputationes. [“Reflection upon them is useless, the disputations about them unprofitable.”]390) Dannhauer reminds us that many questions are treated by the scholastics which are either not answered at all or yet not clearly answered in Scripture; but in regard to the result and practical use, he adds: "One milks the goat, the other keeps the sieve under." 391) Truly we have enough to do in learning and teaching and sticking to what is revealed in Scripture. Luther counts the treatment of useless questions, which are not commanded to us, to "hindrances of the gospel", because thereby the commanded great main things are pushed into the background and the large crowd is only too easily to be had for human thoughts, which satisfy the curiosity. This is what happened, Luther says, to the Jews with the research of their genealogical registers, and this is also what happened in the papacy with the bickering over useless fables and gossip, because everyone wanted to be right.392) Luther's words of warning are as follows: "These are two hindrances to the Gospel: one, if one teaches otherwise, that is, if one drives the law and works into the consciences; the other, if the devil, seeing that he cannot overthrow the faith directly, cunningly sneaks in from behind and raises useless questions, so that one is troubled and the main issue remains behind, as there are dead saints and departed souls, where they remain, whether they sleep, and the like.393) There is always one question after another, that there is no end to them. There, the tiresome presumption worries about unnecessary and useless things, which are neither commanded nor serve the cause. Thus the devil comes behind the people, opens their mouths, so that they gape at it and lose it. And then a fool appears, who also wants to be seen, raises something new and strange,
390) Annotationes in Baieri Comp. 1767, p. 52 [Baier-Walther, I, 67].
391) Hodosophia, Phaen. XI, p. 667, ed. 1713: Unus hircum mulget, alter supponit cribrum.
392) To 1 Tim. 1:3. 4. St. L. IX, 863 f.
393) How much we know about the state of the souls between death and resurrection from the Scriptures is explained in III, 574.
108 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 96-97]
that one should say that he is more learned than others: then the mob bursts with heaps, opens eyes, ears and mouths. So they are silent of faith and love; for they think it is daily bread, that they have all heard and know enough; [it] is vexatious to hear one thing continually."
In what special sense recent theologians, because they deny the inspiration of Scripture and want to draw Christian doctrine from within themselves, speak of "problems" will be dealt with under the section "Theology and Certainty."