16. Theology and certainty.
As is well known, the "epistemological question" is much discussed in our time. This is the question of how a theologian arrives at the subjective or personal assurance of the Christian doctrine. There is no lack of confessions from
442) Ev. Dogmatik 3, p. 37.
443) John 3:19-20
124 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 110-111]
the modern-theological camp of "positive" and "liberal" direction that the treatment of this question presents difficulties.444) The difficulties are self-made. They have their reason in the apostasy from the Scriptures as the Word of God.
In the Scripture the "epistemological question" is answered very clearly and generally understandable. Christ instructs all Christians, including the theologians: "If ye continue in My Word, ... ye shall know the truth." 445) In these words a double point is made: 1. That there is a Christian certainty, γνώσεσϑε τήν αλήϑειαν, ye shall know the truth; 2. That Christian assurance consists in abiding, that is, in believing Christ's word, εάν υμείς μείνψε έν τφ λόγω τφ έμψ, if ye abide in my word. In this statement of Christ it is clearly taught that Christian "certainty of truth" coincides with faith in Christ's Word. And if it is further asked how it comes to faith abiding in Christ's word, Scripture does not leave us in doubt about that either. Christ's word has the property that it itself works faith."446) The reason for this is that with the word of Christ, when it is excepted into the human mind by hearing or reading, is bound the effect of the Holy Spirit, as Paul 1 Cor. 2:5 says of the Christian faith, that it has not έν σοφία άνϑρώπων, but έν δυνάμει ϑεον its origin and existence. Luther expresses this fact by the axiom: Man is certus passive, sicut Verbum Domini certum est active. Luther explains this in more detail thus: "Where this Word (God's Word) comes into the heart with right faith, it makes the heart like it, also firm, certain, and sure, that it becomes so stiffly upright and hard against all temptation, devil, death, and whatsoever it may be called, that it defiantly and haughtily despises and scoffs at everything that wants to doubt, to hesitate, to be angry and wrathful, for it knows that God's Word cannot lie to it."447) But the Scripture gives further important and necessary lessons concerning the "epistemological question". In fact, with special reference to the teachers of the Church, it very emphatically
444) Frank, System der christlichen Gewissheit 2 1, 128. Ihmels, Die christliche Wahrheitsgewißheit, 1901, p. 8. Horst Stephan, Glaubenslehre, 1921, p. 66.
445) John 8:31-32.
446) Rom. 10:17: Ή πίστις εξ ακοής, ή δε ακοή διά ρήματος ϑεοΰ.
447) St. L. III, 1887. ed. 37, 8.
125 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The nature and Concept of Theology. [English ed. 111-112]
inculcates that adherence to the Word of Christ is the only way in which the Christian knowledge of truth is communicated. The apostle Paul testifies to every teacher who does not stick to the word of Christ that he suffers from conceitedness and does not know anything. The apostle Paul testifies to every teacher who does not stick to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he suffers from conceits, knows nothing, has fallen into the plague of questions and disputes about words (νοοών περϊ ζητήσεις και λογομαχίας), that is, he passes by the Christian certainty of truth. Accordingly, we really find in Scripture the question of "Christian certainty" and specifically the question of "Christian truth certainty" answered in an all-round way.
To accept and follow the "epistemological" instruction of the Scriptures is of great practical importance for all Christians as well as especially for theologians. Whoever has Christian certainty at heart takes refuge in the Word of Christ, in the Holy Scriptures, as often as certainty wants to escape him, hears, reads and moves the Word in his heart, believes the Word through the action of the Holy Spirit in the Word, and submits his mind to the Word heard and read in the humble attitude: "Speak, Lord, for your servant hears!" (1 Sam. 3:10) Thus Luther, when Christian certainty, be it the "certainty of salvation," be it the "certainty of truth," wanted to escape from him, took refuge in the Scriptures. He says:448) "I do not know how strong others are in spirit; but I cannot become so holy if I were still so learned and full of spirit as some make themselves believe. It still happens to me all the time when I am without the word, when I do not think about it or deal with it, so that there is no Christ at home, nor any desire or spirit; but as soon as I take a psalm or a passage of Scripture before me, it shines and burns in my heart, so that I gain courage and sense for others. I also know that everyone should experience this daily in himself.” Luther therefore continues to give every Christian and every theologian the counsel that one "should hold one's thoughts to the letters [of Scripture] as one must hold one's fist to a tree or a wall, lest we slip or flutter too far and go astray with our own thoughts. This is what our enthusiasts lack, that they think that when they go into their high spiritual thoughts, they have got it right, and do not see how they are going astray without the word, letting themselves be seduced by vain falsehoods". In these words of Luther it is already stated in which way we
448) Sermon on John 17:1. St. L. VIII, 749 f.
126 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 112]
avoid Christian certainty. We remain uncertain, or we sink back into uncertainty again, if we, in the opinion that we "could" (Luther's expression) already handle the Scriptures industriously and thus do not even outwardly give the Scriptures the opportunity to testify to themselves as divine truth. The situation becomes extremely dangerous, however, when we even assume a critical attitude toward Scripture. Then we not only pass by Christian certainty, but in this case we also experience the blinding effect of the word of Christ, which Christ describes in the words: "I praise you, Father and Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent (άπέκρνψας ταντα από σοφών καί συνετών) and have revealed them to babes."449) And again, "I am come to judgment upon this world, that they which see not may see, and they which see may become blind." 450) This warning also belongs to the all-round treatment of the "epistemological question". We will come back to this point later.
If we keep in mind what Scripture teaches about the "epistemological question," we will arrive at the right judgment about the efforts for "truth-certainty" that we encounter in the camp of modern theologians. In spite of their speaking of “immediate" Christian certainty, they are nevertheless looking for a reliable ground or supporting point for certainty. This sought-after reliable base has also been called the "storm-free castle," a castle to which the Christian "retreats at last" and in which he is secure against all hostile attacks. Where is the "storm-free castle" to be found? Christ, as we have seen, refers his Church to his word, which we have in the word of his apostles and prophets. Christ also assures us that his word is a strong castle, standing firmer than heaven and earth.451) The Christian Church has also understood this instruction. She stood on the Holy Scriptures and from this basis of certainty she stood her ground against the attacks of the enemies. According to the modern theologians, Christ, the Christian church and, of course, Luther were in error. They think that the castle hitherto considered "storm-free"
449) Matt. 11:25.
450) Jn. 9:30. cf. Luther on Matt. 13:15. St. L. VII, 194 f.
451) Matt. 24:35; Mark. 13:31; Luke 21:33.
127 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 113]
has finally been stormed in our time. It is impossible for the "sense of reality", sharply developed by modern scientific methods, to consider the Scriptures as God's own Word. We hear: "In the present day the orthodox doctrine of inspiration has hardly any dogmatic significance. But it is still asserted by individuals, such as Kölling and Nösgen, with some variations. A thoroughly positive theologian says of such latecomers: ‘Their number is small, their efforts fruitless, their displeasure with the comrades who are paving the way for themselves anew, unimpressive.‘ ... The rest of the theologians — even the conservative ones — reject the old doctrine." 452) If it stands thus, however, it is necessary to look for a basis of certainty more certain and reliable than the Holy Scriptures. Modern theologians think they have found such a basis in man himself, in the Christian ego, in the self-consciousness of the theologizing subject. They give various names to this "storm-free castle": pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject, born-again ego, Christian consciousness of faith, Christian experience, and so on. They also argued and still argue about the point on the territory of the ego where the actual seat of certainty is to be found, whether in feeling or in thinking or in willing or also in a combination of the mentioned factors. It was and is also argued whether the certainty is based on the moral ("ethical") constitution or on the "faith" of the Christian ego. But all of them, because they have given up the Scriptures as the Word of God, naturally agree that the castle of certainty is not to be found outside but inside the "Christian subject".
In the first quarter of the last century, Schleiermacher threw this theology of "self-assurance" onto the theological market in his "Glaubenslehre" (Doctrine of Faith)453) and thus aroused general and lasting admiration, not only in the liberal, but also in the positive, especially also in the "Lutheran-confessional" camp. For Nitzsch-Stephan454), Schleiermacher's "Glaubenslehre" is "a Reformation deed," an "innermost feat,"
452) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 258.
453) Der christliche Glaube, nach den Grundsätzen der evangelical faith im Zusammenhänge dargestellt von D. Friedrich Schleiermacher. The preface to the first printing is dated: Berlin, on the Saturday before Trinity Sunday in 1821.
454) Ev. Glaubenslehre, p. 43 ff.
128 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 113-114]
“by far the most important dogmatics of all modern theology"; "its achievement is that it leads human self-consciousness to the height of its development”. But also R. Seeberg calls Schleiermacher the "reformer of the theology of our century" and his "Glaubenslehre" (Doctrine of Faith) "the most perfect and most magnificent dogmatic work that the Evangelical Church has produced so far"; "this book has taught theology to the 19th century"455) This admiration has also penetrated, as has already been mentioned, into the "Lutheran-confessional" camp. R. Seeberg reports, "It can be said that the entire dogmatic work of the church in the 19th century received its goals and trajectories through this work of Schleiermacher." 456) Namely, the so-called "Erlangen Theology" has also committed itself to the theology of self-certainty. It has recently been said of the Erlangen theologians Hofmann and Frank:457) "Hofmann, and even more so Frank, have consciously and fundamentally advocated the full self-certainty of Christianity and its theology." Hofmann's decisive explanation of self-certainty has already been shared. Hofmann says of Christian consciousness that it "does not depend on the church, nor on the Scriptures to which the church refers, nor does it have in this or that the actual and proximate voucher of its truth, but rests in itself and is immediately certain truth. carried and vouchsafed by the indwelling Spirit of God."458) As for Frank, in order to prove the "self-certainty" of Christianity and theology, he has written his "System of Christian Certainty," which contains 893 pages in the first edition and 954 pages in the second edition. Frank says:459) "We are dealing here with the central and specific travail of Christian certainty, where no authority somehow coming from outside decides for itself, but the Christian subject itself and personally, about the ground and right of its certainty." How decisively Frank wants to have eliminated just also the Holy Scripture as foundation of the "certainty" meant by him, he says at a
455) R. Seeberg, Die Kirche Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert, 1903, p. 90. 84.
456) op. cit., p. 84.
457) Bachmann-Erlangen in Theol. Literaturblatt. Ihmels, Leipzig 1922, p. 395.
458) Scripture Evidence 2, p. 11.
459) System of Christian Certainty 2 1, 49.
129 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 114]
place where he becomes a little rude. He writes:460) "Whoever [Philippi is meant] holds up to me the 'objective' redemption [of Christ] and the Word of God instead of my 'subjective' point of view, I am not able to deal with him because he has not understood the question." This, however, as Bachmann says, "consciously and fundamentally teaches the full self-certainty of Christianity and its theology." Only we would like to limit Bachmann's "consciously and fundamentally" in something. Frank undoubtedly represented "the full self-certainty of Christianity and its theology" when he sat on the lectern or wrote books in his study room. Of course, we did not know Frank personally. But on the basis of communications from others and on the basis of what Frank otherwise wrote, we believe we may nevertheless assume that his intercourse with God did not take place on the basis of his "self-certainty" but was mediated on the very basis of which Philippi reminded him, namely, on the basis of the objective redemption of Christ and the objective Word of God. As Frank assumes in his "Theology of the Formula of Concord"461) that Melanchthon never believed his synergism himself, so we assume that Frank also never believed "the self-certainty of Christianity and its theology" himself. We note this here also for the purpose of warding off the thought as if we were denying personal Christianity to all proponents of the self-certainty theory. As certain as it is on the basis of Holy Scriptures that this theory, when consistently carried out in practice, makes personal Christianity utterly impossible, experience, on the other hand, teaches us that there is a "happy inconsistency" or a "double-entry bookkeeping" also in the field of theological operation. We have reminded you of this before, and we will remind you of it repeatedly later. A few years ago, German papers reported that a theologian, who theoretically also practiced the theology of self-certainty, made the statement on his sick and dying bed that he now found his whole theology summarized in Jn. 3:16, with which he actually went out of his ego and "above himself," as Luther expresses it, and thus placed himself on a foundation outside of himself. But this only in passing.
460) Op. cit., p. 115.<w:t xml:space="preserve">461) Vol. I, p. 135.
130 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 115-116]
As for the matter in question itself, the "self-certainty" of theology, it should be noted: A certainty that fundamentally rejects God's Word as its basis is 1. not Christian, 2. not certainty, 3. not scientific.
1. What Christ teaches and does is Christian. This is universally admitted. Now, as has already been pointed out at the beginning of this section, Christ teaches us very definitely also about the method of arriving at the knowledge of truth, that is, at "certainty of truth," namely, by abiding by his word. And because, as is well known, Christ is always right, Schleiermacher, Hofmann, Frank, and all who follow them in method and ascribe to the "Christian subject" wholly or half "self-certainty," that is, certainty independent of Christ's word, are in error. They do not think Christianly, but un-Christianly. Every theologian who assigns the predicate "Christian," "pious," "born-again," etc., to the consciousness that establishes itself independently, thereby deceives himself and others. All predicates of piety are without factual justification.
The claimed "self-assurance", which has detached itself from the Word of Scripture, the only basis of certainty, is not certainty, but imagination. Already in the apostolic church the opinion appeared that one could stand in the certainty of truth even without Christ's word. Within the Corinthian congregation there were people who considered themselves "prophets" and "spiritual", but in doing so set aside the apostolic word. Paul, however, firmly demands of these people that they abandon their self-certainty basis and place themselves on the basis of his apostolic word, because his, Paul's, word is Christ's word. "What I write to you are the Lord's commandments." And if someone does not want to stand on this basis, the congregation should let him go his way as incurable. This is the meaning of the sharp words, "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."462) There were also "self-confident" doctrines in other places. But the apostle also exposes their self-deception with the words: "If any man teach otherwise, and abide not in the sound doctrines of our Lord Jesus Christ ... he is darkened and knows nothing, but is addicted (νοσών, sick) to questions and wars of words." 463) In short, without Christ's word or, what is the same, without the apostles' word as a basis, there is no knowledge of truth or certainty of truth.
462) 1 Cor. 14:37-38; 2 Cor. 13:3.
463) 1 Tim. 6:3.4.
131 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 116]
This now finds its application to the whole crowd of the newer theologians. As certain as they reject Christ's word as the origin and basis of certainty, so certain is their certainty an imaginary one. Just as they erect a barricade against the Scriptures, which are the Word of God, so they barricade themselves against the testimony of the truth of the Holy Spirit, which is effective in the Word of Scripture as the Word of God. They are dependent on issuing a testimony of truth, the testimonium veritatis, to themselves on the basis of what they feel, do, and judge about themselves in the way of "self-reflection." We therefore also find that the representatives of the theology of self-certainty take a decided antipathy to the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Partly they declare it expressly logically false, bringing it with the Roman theologians under the rubric of "circular proof," and partly they consider it insufficient after all. And this is natural from their point of view. Those who are self-confident see in the testimony of the Holy Spirit an unjustified competition, an unjustified intrusion into a business that the theologian has to take care of himself. Zöckler, for example, who belongs to the right-wing part of the newer theologians, states very clearly that the theologian must make himself certain. Zöckler does not want to completely reject464) "the calling of the old Protestant dogmatists to the testimonium Spiritus Sancti", but he describes it as not covering the matter and adds: "It is a free act that depends on ourselves, that is left to our responsibility, a morally necessary consequence, but therefore left to freedom. Only through this free act do we ourselves create certainty." 465) But everything that in theology is built on man himself, be it the "certainty of salvation," be it the "certainty of truth," collapses as soon as and as often as the thunderbolt of divine law strikes even the "saints" into a heap, and leaves no one right, drives them all into terror and despondency.466) Frank in his "System of Christian Certainty" occasionally recalled Archimedes' πον στώ.467) But this dictum speaks against him and against any form of Ego theology. It matters nothing whether
464) Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften2 III. 65.
465) The last sentence by Zöckler himself highlighted by the printing.
466) Schmalk. Art. M. 312, 2. [Trigl., 479,2 🔗]<w:t>467) 1, 133 f.
132 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 117-118]
Archimedes really did make the statement or not: Δός που στώ, καί τον κόομον κινήοω, "Give me a firm standpoint, then I will move the world". In any case, this is to say that it would require a standpoint outside the world to lift the world. This is an apt picture of the important truth in the spiritual realm, that for our personal Christianity and theology we need a standpoint outside of ourselves and the whole world in order to be able to stand our ground against the world, the devil and our ego and win the victory. As we know, we have all these powers against us, especially in the matter of Christian doctrines and their certainty. We have this firm standpoint, which is outside of us, in Christ's word. Christ, as we have already been taught, says of his word, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35) At the same time, we have already heard that Christ describes this word of his, which stands firmer than heaven and earth, as the standpoint on which all must place themselves who wish to be his disciples in truth and to know the truth. Luther understood this instruction and admonition of Christ. From his own deep experience, he therefore constantly counsels all Christians and especially all theologians to step out of their ego and to "go beyond themselves through the Word.468) Through this method, which stands in diametrical opposition to the theology of self-certainty, Luther attained the unshakable certainty of truth that is expressed, for example, in his "Answer to the blasphemous letter by the King of England":469) "As God lives, whichever king or prince thinks that Luther humbles himself before him, as if his doctrine repents of him and he has taught wrongly and seeks mercy, he deceives himself willfully and makes for himself a golden dream, since he will find vain filth as soon as he wakes up. For the sake of doctrine, no one is so great to me, I consider him a water bubble and even less; nothing else will come of it. ... Let him who is repulsed depart; let him who is afraid flee. I know that my reservation is strong and certain enough. Whether the whole world would cling to me and fall away again, that is all the same to me, and I think: even before, when I was alone, it did not cling to me. Whoever does not want to, let him leave; whoever does not stay, let him go forever.” This is Luther's certainty of truth. And this certainty of truth
468) Luther. St. L. XI, 1727. 1736.<w:t xml:space="preserve">469) St. L. XIX, 413. 422.
133 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 118]
has its reason in Luther's standing on the Scriptures as God's own Word, that is, on a standpoint outside of himself and outside of the whole world. Luther says of this word as being outside of him: "It is greater than a hundred thousand worlds, even greater than heaven and earth. The same word shall be my faithful counsel and strong tree, to which I will adhere, that I may bear and endure it. Where we do not hold to the tree, our nature is far too weak to bear the fierce hatred and envy of the world, and to endure the cunning plots and fiery darts of the devil."470) And to recall again Luther's remarks on 2 Sam. 23: God's Word alone makes certain, certum est active; man, however, is made certain by God's Word, he is certus passive; but so certain that the heart "defiantly and haughtily despises and scoffs at everything that wants to doubt, to hesitate, to be angry and wrathful; for it knows that God's Word cannot lie to it." 471)
What, on the other hand, stands with certainty in the theology of self-certainty? That the theology of self-certainty is in fact a theology of self-uncertainty is evident from a whole series of facts. Uncertainty is clearly indicated by the prevailing indifferentism with respect to Christian doctrines. Agreement in doctrines is virtually regarded as an abnormality. "Pure doctrine" is introduced with a "so-called" and made an object of ridicule. Now it stands thus: He who is certain of the truth is not indifferent with respect to doctrine, but resolutely holds to pure doctrine, just as this quality of Christian doctrine, that it is "pure," that is, not tainted by human ego products, is demanded throughout the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.472) Uncertainty is further indicated by the prevailing unionism, which has little hesitation in holding church fellowship even with spirits who are clearly not of God. He who is certain of divine truth thinks and acts according to the order of Christ: "Beware of false prophets!" and according to the instruction given by "the apostle of love"
470) St. L. XIII, 2621.<w:t xml:space="preserve">471) St. L. III, 1887.
472) Cf. the detailed explanation under the section "The closer description of theology, conceived as doctrines".
134 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [Englishe edition 118-119]
concerning Christian brotherly fellowship: "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine [that is, the doctrine of Christ], receive him not at home, neither salute him: for he that saluteth him partaketh of his evil works." 473) Uncertainty is also indicated by the fact that modern theology makes "problems" out of Christian doctrines. We saw under the section "Open Questions and Theological Problems,"474) that there are, however, sano sensu open questions and problems in theology. These are questions that arise in the consideration of the doctrine revealed in Holy Scriptures (quaestiones adnatae), for the answer to which the testimony of Scripture is either entirely lacking, or yet is not present with such clarity pronounced that cautious theologians have dared to say: כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֔ה [HEBREW: Ex. 4:22 etc. “This saith the Lord”], γέγραπται. Prudent theologians, in fact, like Luther, wear a great shyness about putting a human opinion alongside the divine doctrine clearly revealed in Scripture, even if that opinion also has a probability in itself, such as Traducianism. Luther occasionally says, "What I myself am not certain of [namely, not certain from Scripture], I will teach no one."475) Such theologians, to be sure, are not to be blamed but praised. By their refusal to decide what Scripture does not clearly decide, they place in the light the majesty of Holy Scriptures, their uniquely divine authority, which no human authority may stand beside. They speak and decide where Scripture speaks and decides; where Scripture does not speak and decide, they humbly step back and remain silent. In this sense, Christian theologians address open questions and problems. But with the modern theologians we are confronted with the fact that they make "problems" out of the very doctrines that are clearly taught in the Scriptures. They address the problem of the creation and preservation of the world, the person and work of Christ, conversion and justification, the inspiration of Scripture, the relationship between Christian and non-Christian religions, and so on. And from their point of view, they are truly dealing with "problems." First, the human subject, which they have substituted for Holy Scriptures as the source and norm of theology, is fallible. This they admit — admittedly in contradiction with the
473) Matt. 7:15; Rom. 16:17; 2 John 10:11.
474) p. 104 ff. .<w:t xml:space="preserve">475) St. L. XX, 1062.
135 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 119-120]
the claimed "immediate certainty" — partly in fact, partly explicitly. But no certainty can come from a fallible source and norm. On the other hand, they draw — again in contradiction with the claimed "independent" certainty — supports of certainty outside the ego, which are all also uncertain.476) Because of the "possible self-deception", the "Christian experience" is partly recommended, partly expressly made obligatory, to take due account of a whole number of factors lying outside the subject, namely of "the most distinguished forms of world view", of "the other truth possessions of mankind", of "the real results of the remaining scientific research", as there are: Historical science, other religious science ("comparative religious research"), the natural scientific research, etc. By these external factors the certainty is moved even more into unattainable distance, because admittedly generally secured results in the mentioned areas are not yet available. Thus, the "Christian subject" who seeks certainty stands before a collection of uncertainties. In addition, there is also their demand to link this collection of uncertainties "to a unified whole". This is truly sour work, a "problem" in the fullest sense of the word. The much-used expression that the theologian has to "work out" the concept of truth is significant. It is the rolling of the Sisyphean stone, the drawing of water from the Danaides. In short, the theology that has abandoned Scripture as the only source and norm of theology and pitched its tents on the "pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject" is a theology of uncertainty.
In order to save the certainty of the theology of self-consciousness, it has been pointed out that, according to the Scriptures, the Christian can "read off" his Christian status and his standing in the truth from his Christian works, that is, he can recognize them by reflecting on his ego. This is true. This is the teaching of Scripture.477) This is also doctrine of the Lutheran confession.478) Although — also according to Scripture and the confession479) — "the weather
476) Here Ihmels can be compared, Zentralfragen, pp. 159-166. Also Kirn, Dogmatik, pp. 1-6.
477) Jn. 8:47; 1 Jn. 3:14; 2:3. 4; Matt. 6:14; 2 Petr. 1:10.
478) Apol. M. 135, 154 f. [Trigl. 199, 154 f. 🔗]
479) 1 Jn. 3:20; Rom. 4:16.- F. C.. 620, 43 ff.
136 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 120-121]
can become so bad" and indeed not infrequently becomes so evil that the Christian, in order not to perish in uncertainty, is dependent on "reading off" his Christian status and his standing in the truth merely by means of faith from the objective factor of the Word of Scripture. But, as I said, it is and remains God's will that Christians should strive with all diligence to have a testimony of their standing in grace and truth also in their works.480) But, as we know, this applies only to the good works of Christians. But if we examine the works or the fruits that have grown on the tree of "the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject," we immediately find that they are evil works. Schleiermacher, the "father" of self-consciousness theology in the 19th century, denies the guilt of sin and the redemption of the guilt of sin through the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, the eternal deity of Christ, the Trinity, in short, all the basic articles of the Christian religion. This evil nature of the fruits of Schleiermacher's self-consciousness is also admitted by more recent theologians. They admire Schleiermacher's method and follow it. But to the content of Schleiermacher's self-consciousness they bring "far-reaching misgivings." But, what kind of doctrinal fruits have also been brought by the "Lutheran-confessional" theologians who have embraced Schleiermacher's experiential method? With visible glee, the liberal wing of the newer theologians notes and publicizes the fact that the newer Lutherans, too, have abandoned Scripture as the Word of God and Christ's work as satisfactio vicaria, furthermore, original sin, the eternal, unchanging deity of Christ, the "doctrine of two natures," justification as actus forensis, the means of grace as the only means of presenting the forgiveness of sins and the origin and preservation of faith. But these are all evil works, which the Holy Spirit, who dwells in the heart of Christians, perhorresces [shudders]. Therefore, they cannot support the "Christian certainty", but only serve as support points for an imaginary certainty of the "human
480) With the ancient theologians we have called good works testimonia Spiritus Sancti externa, in distinction from testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum, which consists in the faith in the Word of God worked by the Holy Spirit and coincides with this faith. Cf. the more detailed exposition under the sections "Faith and Testimony of the Holy Spirit," II, 534 f., and "Justification by Works," II, 654 ff.
137 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 121-122]
self-consciousness" that has divorced itself from Christ's word and thus erected a blockade against the knowledge of truth.481)
But even if self-certainty does not serve for certainty but for the opposite, is it not at least scientific? When Frank's "System of Christian Certainty" appeared in its first edition, it caused a great sensation. But there was also criticism. In particular, someone whom Frank himself calls an "excellent" theologian in the second edition of his writing, suggested to Frank that his (Frank's) great book should have only "little use", according to the author's own theory. If the "Christian certainty" is really, as Frank claims, completely independent of every thing outside of it, then Frank's book, because it also belongs to the things outside of the Christian subject, cannot be of any use to Frank himself or to any other man in the world for the production or preservation of the Christian certainty. However, this is
481) That also with Frank from the I-method followed by him the articles of the Christian faith "emerge mutilated and crippled" is explained in detail in Lehre und Wehre 1896, pp. 65 ff. 97 ff. 129 ff. 161 ff. 201 ff. 262 ff. The article under the heading "Frank's Theology" is written by v. Stöckhardt. Stöckhardt does not place Frank in every respect on the same line with the liberal wing of self-certainty theology. He acknowledges "that Frank does leave certain elements of Christian truth standing," but rightly adds, "This is not in (Frank's) system, this is inconsistency. That is a remnant of Christianity which has still asserted itself in the face of the alien theological principle. And this inconsistency is the best thing in his system, not its merit." Stöckhardt demonstrates that Frank sacrifices the infallible divine authority of Holy Scriptures to his ego. While Christ and his apostles unhesitatingly identify Scripture and the Word of God, Frank says, "I would not take upon myself the responsibility of teaching a Christian that belief in the truth of salvation involves belief in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture." (L. u. W., op. cit., p. 97.) Frank also drops the satisfactio vicaria of Christ. While Scripture expressly teaches that Christ suffered the punishment that we humans should have suffered (Is. 53:5; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13), Frank declares, "If one had to demand, for the sake of the substitution of Christ, that He suffered what condemned humanity should have suffered, the satisfactio vicaria would be invalid, since Christ did not suffer this very thing." (L. u. W., op. cit., p. 138.) In the doctrine of justification Frank, on the one hand, speaks quite orthodoxly of the iustitia extra nos posita; on the other hand, according to Frank, faith in justification comes into consideration not merely as a medium ληπτικόν, but also qua conduct of man, as an act of free self-determination. (L. u. W., op. cit., p. 169.)
138 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 122]
a fatal objection against "self-certainty". This is the point at which Ego theology — it does not date only since Schleiermacher, but has existed abundantly before — comes into an embarrassment which it cannot overcome. When the enthusiasts in the 16th century claimed that they had the "Spirit" and, of course, also the certainty of truth independent of the "external word", Luther suggested to them that they should also stop their own speaking and writing, unless they stood in the arrogant opinion that "the Spirit could not come through the Scriptures or the oral word of the apostles, but through their [the enthusiasts'] writing and word he must come"482) Frank acknowledges the justification of this objection. He admits, however, that his "system of Christian certainty" could not nor should not serve anyone to attain certainty. At the same time, however, he points out that there are other interests than Christian certainty in the world, namely the scientific interest, and this interest should be served by his "system". Frank writes literally in the second edition of his book:483) "If one objects, as an outstanding theologian who died years ago did, if it is meant in this way, then the benefit should be small; for whoever has had such experience and stands in certainty does not need that proof, and whoever has not had it and does not stand in it, it is of no help to him, then I answer: I desired nothing more than to understand to some extent what is really there, the certainty that is actually given. … Probably a small task, but nevertheless a task, namely a scientific one: whoever, standing in the certainty, carries no desire for it, let him leave it, and whoever does not stand in it, let him also leave it!"
But also against this assertion of Frank that the task he has set for himself has at least a scientific character, we have to take precautions in the interest of science. It is not easy to gain a reasonably clear idea of the train of thought by which Frank wants to provide scientific proof of Christian self-assurance. Frank's complaints that his "questioning" was not understood were justified. On the other hand, his evaluators not only pointed to the fact that Frank was speaking in unnecessarily difficult language, but also reminded of the possibility that Frank
482) Schmalk. Art. M. 322, 6. [Trigl. 495, 6 🔗]<w:t>483) I, 119 f.
139 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 123]
himself has lost the overview of the train of thought through which "self-assurance" occurs in him. As far as we and others understand Frank, it should come to scientific certainty in the way that the subject "objectifies" itself, that is, sets itself as object of the consideration. If this happens, then the subject receives "impressions" through the object which it sets itself and which it is itself, which it raises to "cognition" through thinking and thus makes itself scientifically certain. Now it is always presupposed that the subject must not look around for an object outside of itself, namely also not to the Holy Scriptures and the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. "I cannot call upon the Holy Spirit," says Frank, "in so far as it stands in question whether what I hear is the testimony of the Holy Spirit, just as I cannot call upon the Holy Scriptures when it stands in question how I come to regard these Scriptures as holy." 484) The procedure, therefore, proceeds as if someone looking for a foothold (for scientific certainty is to be presented as "becoming") were to seize himself by some part of his body and thus think he has found the necessary foothold. The theology of self-certainty cannot complain if some crude, partly ungallant images have been used to characterize its scientific method. For it has been said that the method of certainty under rejection of any "external" support by seizing the ego as an object is just as "scientific" as Münchhausen's, who pulled himself out of the swamp together with his horse by his own hair. In this country, to illustrate the scientific nature of the method, one has recalled the method of the man "who raised himself by his own bootstraps". And if the concept of "closed unity" is added, which the ego method aspired to and which was praised in such effusive terms ("systematic mastery," "scientific genius," "height of scientific development," etc.), then a somewhat ungallant image has been used. The admired "closed unity" has been compared with the unity which the cat creates by playing with its own tail and, seizing this part of the body as an object, moves more or less fast around itself. Without illustration, the situation has been correctly
484) System of Christian Certainty2 1, 143.
140 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 123-124]
described to the effect that the theologian, in so far as he has really detached himself from the Holy Scriptures, deals not with God and divine truth, but with himself and his human thoughts, or, as it has also been expressed, deals with "projections of the human ego". There is really nothing that can be said in favor of the scientific character of the theological ego method.485)
As a result: If modern theology wants to get in touch again with not only imagined but real "Christian certainty", and if it also wants to get in touch again with real science — to science belongs also an orderly economy of thoughts —, then it must — there is really no other way — make a big cut through itself. It must give up the unchristian and illogical idea of "self-certainty" in the field of Christian knowledge of truth and place itself again on the objective foundation on which the Christian church is actually built, on the word of the apostles and prophets or, what is the same, on the word of Christ.486) There is no self-certainty in Christian theology, but it stands as Luther says: Homo est certum passive, sicut Verbum Dei est certum active. Nor does the modern-theological calling on Christ's person as opposed to Christ's word apply here. Admittedly, Christ's person is the cornerstone of his church.487) But we can base ourselves on Christ as the cornerstone only by means of faith in Christ's Word, which we have in the Word of His apostles and prophets, as expressed in the immediately preceding words: εποικοδομηϑέντες έπι τφ ϑεμελίω των αποστόλων και προφητών. He who sets aside the word
485) Frank invokes Fichte's idealism of the object-setting by the subject for the scientific construction of self-certainty. He says: "This is the abiding truth of Fichte's idealism." (Christl. Gewissheit I, 61.) O. Flügel describes Fichte's idealism thus in "Problems of Philosophy and their Solutions," p. 96: "According to Fichte, the essence of things, as with Berkeley, consists in the mere conception; but he goes beyond Berkeley in that he no longer looks for an external cause of origin of these conceptions, but, expressly refraining from such a cause, regards our mind itself as the sole author of all that which it believes itself to perceive externally." Flügel finds in Fichte "only about two" inconsistencies. H. Ulrici calls Fichte's idealism "a nonsensical one-sidedness" (RE.2 XV, 381).
486) Eph. 2:20; Jn. 8:31-32; 17:20.<w:t>487) Eph. 2:20; 1 Petr. 2:6.
141 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 124-125]
of the apostles and prophets does not base himself on Christ, the cornerstone, but sets himself beside it. Luther expresses this, as we heard above, as follows: "If I am without the Word, if I do not think about it or deal with it, then there is no Christ at home.”
To explain the spiritual and mental collapse of the theology of self-certainty, experience, etc., it is necessary to point out the fact that we already touched upon at the beginning of this section. This is the fact that experiential theology does not take a faithful, but a critical position against Word of God and thus against God Himself. It owes its emergence and existence to this critical position. Because it rejects Scripture as God's infallible Word, it has retreated to the "religious experience" of the theologizing subject, and from here it examines and criticizes Holy Scriptures. While Christ says, "I have given them thy word," and bears witness to this word, "Thy word is truth,"488) experiential theology, from the extreme left wing to the extreme right wing, says, partly outright, partly in a somewhat covert manner, but in unison, Thy word is not truth, but is interspersed with error. And while Christ commanded his church to place itself on the basis of his word for the purpose of the knowledge of truth, in order to be redeemed in this way from every human ego, especially also from the ego of the theologians, the theology of experience instructs the church to detach itself from the word of Christ given to the church and to withdraw into the "storm-free castle" of the self-consciousness of the Christian subject. The criticism is intensified by the repeated assertion that whoever does not go along with this change of basis, but still wants to draw Christian doctrine from Holy Scriptures and standardize it, as the first church, the church of the Reformation and "especially the old dogmatists" did, causes misfortune in the church; he does not convey "living Christianity" and "living faith", but "intellectualism", dead orthodoxy. This, in precise exposition, is the distinctly critical position that all experiential theologians take against God's Word and thus against God Himself. Experiential theology is the theology of elevation above God's Word. It is the Nietzschean "superman" in the theological field. Now we know from the Holy Scripture that this critical position against God's Word is an exceedingly
488) John 17:14, 17.
142 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 125]
dangerous thing. God cannot stand the criticism of His Word. Christ gave the Word of God to men so that they would believe it. All those who criticize it instead of believing it come under the judgment regarding the knowledge of the truth, which Christ describes in the words Matt. 11:25: "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Word of God has primo loco an enlightening, secundo loco a blinding effect. Whoever, through the effect of the Holy Spirit in the Word, receives it not as the Word of man but, as it truly is, as the Word of God, as the Thessalonians do,489) it enlightens; whoever opposes it with the criticism of his ego, it blinds. And this judicially blinding effect also binds the natural power of judgment. First of all, we point to the attempts that we find in almost all experiential theologians to place I-theology under Luther's protection. Luther is said to have rejected the theologians of the Word of Scripture and to have appointed the pious ego as judge of the Word of Scripture. Statements in which Luther very correctly emphasizes that faith must be added to the external word of Scripture are interpreted as if Luther wanted to detach faith from the external word of Scripture. This misunderstanding of Luther's statements goes beyond the usual measure of weakness of judgment that has been inherent in all men since the Fall.490) Then we are confronted with the fact that the representatives of experiential theology accuse each other of "subjectivism". These accusations are meaningless, because the examination of them immediately shows that the accuser is no less sick than the accused in the hospital of subjectivism. W. Herrmann accuses Frank of subjectivism, as Ihmels reports and explains in detail.491) Herrmann, however, for his part wants to establish Christian certainty by the fact that the human subject imitates the "inner life of Jesus" in himself. As if this would not be subjectivism in the eminent sense of the word! Frank's subjectivism is also objected by Ihmels. Ihmels points out that Frank wants to use the "ethical approach" (the moral transformation of the Christian subject
489) 1 Thess. 2:13.
490) This point is elaborated on in the doctrine of Holy Scriptures under the section "Luther and Holy Scriptures."
491) Die christl. Wahrheitsgewißheit, pp. 124-167.
143 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 125-126]
in comparison with the earlier unchristian subject) as the "foundation of the whole Christian state". Ihmels judges very correctly that the ethical nature of the Christian is subject to "manifold fluctuations" and therefore cannot be the foundation of the Christian state. Frank himself admitted these "manifold fluctuations". The foundation of the Christian state, says Ihmels, can only be justification. But even Ihmels does not succeed in getting beyond subjectivism because, like Frank, he mixes human activity into the belief in justification. If the words with which he concludes his "Central Questions" are to be taken seriously, he places coming to the gracious God and knowing the truth on human willing. He says there:492) "Last of all, this truth [Christian truth] is called God, and God can only be revealed to him who wills him." This is truly a clearly stated subjective justification of both the certainty of salvation and the certainty of truth. Thus, as the Formula of Concord reminds us, Chrysostom also thought of the matter: Trahit Deus, sed volentem trahit; tantum velis, et Deus praeoccurrit. "God draws, but he draws him who wills; you have only to will, and God will precede you." Rightly does the Formula of Concord warn against these sayings because they are "introduced to confirm the natural free will … contrary to the doctrine of God's grace" and "do not resemble the form of sound doctrine."493) In the kingdom of God, it is not up to anyone's will or running, but up to God's mercy.494) How we poor men stand in our way, and how foolishly we act when we seek a subjective ground of certainty! The ground of our certainty lies outside of us, in God's Word, in the Word of the apostles and prophets, on which the Christian Church is built. Every attempt to establish certainty, be it the certainty of salvation, be it the certainty of truth, by something that lies within ourselves, makes certainty uncertain, no matter what we call the foundation that has been laid in our ego, be it regeneration or moral transformation or self-determination and self-setting or human behavior and lesser guilt or antecedent volition, etc. Luther must have experienced this. That is why he calls out to Erasmus, when the latter insisted to him that coming to the gracious God should be conditioned by the facultas se applicandi ad gratiam [“ability to apply oneself to grace”]:
492) Central Questions 2, p. 166.
493) M. 608, 86. [Trigl. 913, 86 🔗]<w:t>494) Rom. 9:16, 30-33.
144 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 126-127]
"You are at my throat."495) Therefore the same Luther, in regard to the "certainty of truth," holds to the axiom that man does not make himself certain, but is made certain by the Word of God; homo certns est passive, sicut Verbum Dei est certum active. So far is Luther from old subjectivism, which one would like to make him the protector of, that he also warns against making true faith, worked by the Holy Spirit, the foundation of certainty and thus basing faith on faith. Luther calls the one who does this an "idolatrous, denied" Christian. Luther writes:496) "It is true that one should believe for Baptism [and Luther refers this also to the external objective word]; but one should not be baptized on faith. It is a very different thing to have faith and to rely on faith and thus to be baptized on it. He who allows himself to be baptized on faith is not only uncertain, but also an idolatrous, denied Christian, for he trusts and builds on his own, namely on a gift which God has given him, and not on God's Word alone, just as another trusts and builds on his strength, wealth, power, wisdom, holiness, which are nevertheless also gifts given him by God."
We have judged sharply on "self-consciousness theology" in the previous section. But it is not our judgment, but God's judgment, as it is clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures. For this purpose, we also think of ourselves in this sharp judgment. The evil nature that asserts itself in the theology of "human self-consciousness" still dwells in all Christians, insofar as they still have the evil flesh about them. The flesh of Christians also still represents man who has fallen away from God, who, because he has fallen away from God, his center, makes himself the center of things, is self-conscious, "sets himself," also sets himself above God's Word of God, thus plays the "superman." Whoever is rid of this kind of ruling, let him praise God's grace, which led him without his merit into church relationships, which were not a hindrance to true theology, but only conducive to it. Whoever, in a haughty spirit, wanted to say to himself: "I thank you, God, that I am not like the other people", would eo ipso fall back into the theology of self-assurance, even in the midst of the outward
495) St. L. XVIII, 1967. Opp. v. a. VII, 367.<w:t xml:space="preserve">496) St. L. XVII, 2213.
145 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 127-128]
fellowship of such church circles in which the theology of self-consciousness is doctrinally rejected in the most decisive way. Of course, the fact that the theology of self-consciousness is only an outworking of the evil kind found in all fallen Adam's children cannot relieve us of the duty to fight it with great seriousness. This theology is in every respect not what it pretends to be. To repeat briefly: Conceived to ensure the scientific character of theology, it puts its representatives in the role of the man who clings to his own ego to secure the wavering ego. We saw further that ego theology represents the most evil form of idolatry, namely self-deification. The ego theologian ascribes to himself the authority he denies to Holy Scriptures. And just as all idolatry is destructive,497) so specifically is self-idolatry, which is the essence of self-certainty theology. Its result is not certainty, but imagination, self-deception, uncertainty, as has been shown in detail. We also saw that ego theology is very contagious. Schleiermacher was and is admired as the reformer of the 19th century. And the reason for this is twofold. Man, decentralized by the Fall, makes himself the center of things. Therefore, he is easily won over to a theology that assigns a position of dominance to his ego. Then the ego theology, although its essence is godlessness, appeared and still appears with the appearance of piety. The enthusiasts of the 16th century would not have torn the church apart if they had openly stated that their ideas were products of their human ego. Instead, they ascribed their vagaries to the Holy Spirit. They also, to affirm their piety, shed "troughs of tears," as Luther occasionally remarks. Thus Schleiermacher and all those who follow his theological method also spoke and still speak of the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject, of the reborn I, of the Christian experience, and so on. And although they reject Scripture as the Word of God and the satisfactio vicaria, they speak of great progress in exegesis and of a deeper grasp of the meaning of Scripture. All this deceives and is apt to seduce even "innocent hearts"498) . In the field of nature the Fichtean method
497) Ps. 115:4-8.<w:t>498) Rom. 16:18.
146 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 128]
of setting the objects by the subject cannot cause any confusion, because the reasonless creature is not guided by the ideas of Fichte, Plato or any other ego. It stands differently in the spiritual sphere. There we see that the setting of objects by the human subject finds numerous admirers and buyers among the rational creatures. From this arises the duty of all those who have open eyes through God's grace to expose and fight the deception of self-consciousness theology.
In the foregoing, we have demonstrated the unchristian and pernicious character of the theology of consciousness primarily on the basis of German writings. But this theology also dominates pretty much all Protestant theology in the United States. Yes, it is quite actually at home with us, as in the land of the Reformed sects. Zwingli and Calvin, with their doctrines of the direct activity of the Holy Spirit, were principled representatives of ego theology. That the false principle could not fully develop at that time was due to the powerful influence of Luther. Because this influence of Luther was missing at the beginning of the 19th century, it need not surprise us that Schleiermacher with his reformed-pantheistic theology found admirers and followers in this country, even if one had to make exhibitions in detail.499) At present it stands in the United States that our old and new great universities, with a partial exception of Princeton, represent self-consciousness theology insofar as they are concerned with theology. We reported recently in "Lehre und Wehre"500) of an "organization of the laity" [Fundamentalists] against the apostasy from Christian fundamentals which has been reared in the universities and seminaries and now overgrows the country. The organization is justified by the fact that in the universities and most of the seminaries a generation of preachers has been raised who deny the Christian fundamentals. It is especially pointed out that in place of the divine authority the consciousness of the individual is put and in place of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ moral aspirations
499) Instructive regarding Schleiermacher's influence in this country is Strong's long article "The Theology of Schleiermacher as Illustrated by His Life and Correspondence" in his Miscellanies, Vol. II, 1-57.
500) 1923, p. 89 f.
147 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 129-130]
are put after the model of the ideal man Christ.501) How far this "lay organization" will form a dam against the tide of destruction stands to be seen. In our church fellowship, which has united under the name of Synodical Conference, no organization of the laity against the pastors has yet been necessary, thank God. We do not know of a single one among the thousands of pastors who would touch the inspiration of Scripture and as a result be pushed to the standpoint of Ego theology. But it is necessary to keep in mind the danger that also threatens us through our American environment.