17. Theology and doctrinal.
As is well known, especially in our time the further training of Christian doctrines is considered necessary and useful, not only by the variously graded liberal theologians, but also by the "confessionally" oriented newer Lutherans. Examples will be given in the following. The theologians who oppose doctrinal development have been called "Repristination Theologians", especially the so-called Missourians;502) but also others, e.g. Philippi.503) Also within the Lutheran Church in America, the formation of the Lutheran doctrines was put on the agenda.504)
501) We put some words from the publication The Fundamentalist, Vol. II, No. 1, here: "The Radicals are set on substituting ‘evolution’ for creation, ‘the principle animating the cosmos’ for the living God, consciousness of the individual for the authority of the Bible, reason for revelation, sight for faith, ‘social service’ for salvation, reform for regeneration, the priest for the prophet, ecclesiasticism for evangelism, the human Jesus for the divine Christ, a man-made ‘ideal society’ for the divinely promised kingdom of God, and humanitarian efforts in this poor world for an eternity of joy in God’s bright home.” Special reference is made to Dr. Fosdick's sermon recently preached in New York and widely circulated in the country: "Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, for example, not only preached his now famous sermon here in New York on the question, ‘Shall the Fundamentalists Win?’ in which he repudiated the inspiration of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, and the second coming of our Lord, but this sermon was then put into pamphlet form, and has been broadcasted throughout the nation."
502) Cf. the preface to L. u. W. 1875, pp. 1 ff. 33 ff., especially p. 65 ff.
503) Hofmann in "Schutzschriften," 1. issue, p. 2, against and about Philippi: "May nevertheless sleep away, who likes to have it comfortably.
504) Here belongs the article "Die falschen Stützen der modernen Theorie von den offenen Fragen", L. u. W. 1868, p. 100 ff. [Ed. - sic! Not 97 ff.; also "Die moderne Lehrentwicklungshäresie," 1877, pp. 129 ff.
149 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 130]
There can be no further development of the Christian doctrine, because the Christian doctrine is a completely closed quantity with the doctrine of the apostles, which is not to be further developed in the course of time, but is to be held and taught completely unchanged. Christ's teaching mandate, which we have Matt. 28:18-20, covers the whole period of the New Testament until the Last Day and is to the effect that His Church should teach the nations all that He (Christ) has commanded it. That we have Christ's doctrine in the doctrines of His apostles is also testified by Christ Himself when He says in John 17:20 that all the members of His Church will believe in Him through the word of the apostles until the Last Day. The apostles were also very clearly aware of this. Paul exhorts the congregations which had come into existence through his teaching: "Stand therefore (οτήκειε), brethren, and hold fast the statutes (κρατείτε τάς παραδόσεις) which ye are taught, whether by our word or epistle."505) And that Paul was not thinking merely of temporary validity of his doctrine is evident from the passages in which he expressly takes account of the times to come: "This I know, that after my departure there shall come among you abominable wolves, which shall not spare the flock. Even from among yourselves will arise" (άναστήσονται, Futurum) "men who speak perverse doctrines to draw disciples to themselves."506) "In the last times some will depart from the faith" (απoστήσονται, future tense) "and will cling to the seducing spirits and doctrines of devils."507) All that Paul teaches, he teaches in view of the Last Day, and thus as valid until the Last Day.508) And Paul's doctrine is such unchangeable divine truth that he pronounces a curse on anyone who allows himself to change his gospel.509) Hence also the apostle's exhortation to depart from all who teach otherwise, and confidently to consider them pompous babblers and know-nothings.510) Particularly noteworthy for our time is the fact that Paul holds fast the perfection of apostolic doctrine even to those teachers who, under the appearance of a higher philosophical knowledge and a higher spirituality, wanted to supplement the doctrine of Christ. He says of all of them,
505) 2 Thess. 2:15.<w:t>506) Acts 20:29-31.
507) 1 Tim. 4:1 ff. Likewise 2 Tim. 3:1 ff.
508) 2 Tim. 4:1 ff; 1 Tim. 6:14. 15. Likewise Peter, 1 Petr. 5:1-4.
509) Gal. 1:6-9; 5:12.<w:t>510) Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3. 4.
149 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 130-131]
Who believe the doctrines of Christ preached by the apostles, that they are thereby made perfect in Christ, εστε έν αντω πεπληρωμένοι. 511) [130 |131]
Against this it has been objected by representatives of doctrinal development that in the course of time the Church has seen itself compelled to express Christian doctrine in special formulations, such as όμοούσιος, πεοτόκος, homo mere passive se habet, etc., in the face of the rising error. This is a fact. But new formulations of the doctrine of Scripture brought about by the opposition, such as those just mentioned, are not evidence of doctrinal advancement, but rather evidence of the opposite, namely, of staying with the doctrine of Scripture (μένειν
511) Col. 2:6-9. 16-20. Peake says, for example on this passage (in The Expositor's Greek Testament): "There is no condemnation of philosophy in itself, but simply of the empty, but plausible, sham that went by that name at Colossae." Similarly Meyer and probably most recent exegetes. According to text and context, it stands that the apostle warns against all philosophy insofar as it wants to have a say in matters of Christian doctrine and to supplement Christian doctrine or make it more perfect. In this, says the apostle, lies an empty deceit, because philosophy is doctrine of men, κατά την παράδοαιν των άνπρώπων while Christians are taught κατά Χριοτόν, who is not a mere man, but in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead, so that Christian doctrine, as distinguished from all doctrines of men, is divine doctrine. Cf. note 138. In short, in this Colossian passage all philosophy, because by its nature it is human doctrine, is excluded from theology absolutely. Meyer thinks that "Luther's frequent condemnations of philosophy" are due to the fact that Luther "had in mind the degeneration of philosophy in Aristotelian scholasticism. Cf. on the other hand the quotation from Luther given on p. 17. Luther praises the philosophers insofar as they teach matters of the doctrine from natural reason. However, he states: "The philosophers do not find theologians; therefore Paul reminds us not in vain [Col. 2:8] that we should beware of philosophy, that is, of all philosophy, because such a one has nothing but words of human wisdom, which certainly cannot agree with the Gospel and therefore cannot agree with it." St. L. XXII, 1932. Furthermore, St. L. I, 484 f., on Gen. 6:5. 6: "In some places, the philosophers disputate not so foolishly (inepte) about God, about God's providence, through which God governs everything; and some seem to be so Christian in their address that they almost make prophets out of Socrates, Xenophon, Plato, etc.".. But because they thus dispute that they do not know that God sent his Son Christ for the salvation of sinners, these precious and beautiful disputations are the highest ignorance of God and vain blasphemy according to the opinion of this text, which briefly and roundly makes such a judgment that all imagination of the human heart is absolutely evil.”
150 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 131-132]
iv τώ λόγω τον Χριοτοϋ). Luther proves conclusively that the first ancient "main councils" with their όμοούσιος, ϑεοτόκος, etc., did nothing new, but only made known the doctrines which Christendom believed from the very beginning on the basis of Scripture.512) Even by the Reformation of the church the Christian doctrine has not been in the least advanced, [131/132] but merely the old teaching of Scripture has been again drawn out of the papist jumble of the doctrines of men, taught and known. Luther was well aware of this. He says:513) "We do not invent anything new, but keep and remain with the old doctrine, as the old church had it; therefore we are with it the true old church, which teaches and believes the same word of God. Therefore the papists blaspheme Christ himself, the apostles and the whole of Christendom, when they call us new men and heretics. For they find nothing among us but only the old things of the ancient church." There is a failure to understand the Reformation when modern theologians, in order to place themselves under Luther's protection with their further doctrinal training, speak of a "new understanding of Christianity in the Reformation". That it teaches nothing new is also the glory of the Augustana.514) Likewise, the Formula of Concord does not want to set anything new, as is evident from its principled explanation: "that the
512) Luther proves this in his writing "Of the Councils and Churches" of the individual councils and then says in summary St. L. XVI, 2248 f.: "So we have the four main councils and the reasons why they were held. The first, at Nicaea, defended the deity of Christ against Arium; the second, at Constantinople, defended the deity of the Holy Spirit against Macedonium; the third, at Ephesus, defended one person in Christ against Nestorium; the fourth, at Chalcedon, defended two natures in Christ against Eutychen, but did not thereby establish a new article of faith. For these four articles are much more abundant and powerful in St. John's Gospel alone, even though the other evangelists and St. Paul and St. Peter wrote nothing about them, who also teach and testify to all these things powerfully, along with all the prophets. Now if these four main councils (which the bishops of Rome decree to be equal to the four Gospels, just as if such matters did not stand much more abundantly next to all the articles in the Gospels — so the donkey-eaters understand what Gospels or councils are!) neither want to nor can make or set anything new in articles of faith, as they themselves confess, how much less can such power be given to the other councils, which must be held inferior, where these four are to be and are called the main councils. ... But if they set anything new in faith or good works, be sure that the Holy Spirit is not there, but the unholy Spirit with his angels."
513) St. L. XVII, 1324.<w:t>514) Art. XXI M. 47, 1-5; 48, 1-6. [Trigl. 59, 1a-5 🔗; 59, 1b-6 🔗]
151 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 132]
only rule and guide by which all teachings and teachers are to be judged and evaluated at the same time are the prophetic and apostolic scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. ... But other writings of the old and new teachers, as they have names, are not to be held equal to the Holy Scriptures, all of them are to be subjected to them, and are not to be accepted otherwise or further than as witnesses, in what form after the time of the apostles and in what places such doctrines of the apostles and prophets have been preserved."515) That no new doctrine is presented in the Formula of Concord, even in the article about the person of Christ and especially about the communicatio idiomatum, is proven dogma-historically in the Catalogus Testimoniorum.516)
The fact that there is no further education of the Christian doctrine is finally revealed by the fact that all [132/133] attempts at further education, seen in the light of day, prove to be a reshaping and destruction of the Christian doctrine. And this is not only the judgment of Luther and of those who are registered by the Ego theology as repristination theologians, but so judged also such State Church theologians of the 19th century, who had at heart the adherence to the Christian doctrine. Thus wrote D. Münkel wrote in 1862 in the preface to his "Neues Zeitblatt":517) "There is hardly any doctrine left which has not undergone considerable transformation, additions and eradications. If you start from the Trinity, go on to the doctrines of the person and work of Christ, of faith and righteousness, of the sacraments and the church up to the last things, you will hardly find anything in its old form and in its former value. Not infrequently it is changed to such an extent that only the old frame still reminds of the old picture, and sometimes even the frame is smashed as even too scarce and old Frankish. A small sample may illustrate this. If, according to church doctrine, Christ is truly God even in his humiliation, he has now been emptied of divine attributes, without which deity cannot be thought at all, or his deity is gradually worked into him until the resurrection. The death of Christ had to put up with the fact that it was no longer done for the atonement in our place and for reconciliation with God. The righteousness of faith through the declaration of God's righteousness
515) Epitome. M. 517, 1, 2. [Trigl. 777, 1-2 🔗]<w:t>516) M. 731-760. [Trigl. 1107-1149; OldBookOfConcord.org here].
517) Quoted in L. u. W. 1875, p. 71 ff.
152 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 132-133]
is said to be too wooden and external; in a somewhat obscured manner, works are again drawn upon. Law and gospel are mixed together again. The Word of God and the sermon are put on the back burner as if the sacraments were the main thing, or at least had to bring life into the church first. The visible church is again given such importance as if it were the true church, the holder of all God's promises. And what shall I say about the relationship of the churches, of office and governance, of chiliasm and eternal life? The disputes are before everyone's eyes, and if the dispute did not have something on it, it would not be so fierce. ... I suppose that if we were to agree on all these enumerated or not enumerated deviations and changes, would that still be called Lutheran doctrine, or would one have the courage to call that the continuation of Lutheran doctrine, which sweeps out the most essential matters of Lutheran doctrine like old rubble? I at least would not have the heart to call myself a Lutheran, and would openly confess: We have all deviated. ... It is quite certain that scientific theology will lose its credit in the not too distant future. While the other sciences are gaining the respect of the world by their true and undeniable progress, theology shows the most boundless confusion, and while it is progressing, no one really knows what the progress consists in, since one calls the other's progress regress, and the church has not only no gain to show from all progress, but only quarrels and bumps and wounds. Thus it has come about that the other sciences have formed a common bond around all educated peoples, and have taken all forces into their service, while theology of all kinds is fragmented and divided, which, according to its calling and its substance, should unite in the one salvation which is destined for all peoples. This is a very deplorable and depressing sight, which will certainly not encourage one to entrust oneself to the aberrations of theological science." In 1870 the Berlin "Ev. Kirchenzeitung" of April, founded by Hengstenberg and continued by Tauscher, judged:518) "We must say that the present time with its theological and church discord is the least suitable for the development of church doctrine. Are even the most churchly (!) theologians of the
518) Quoted in L. u. W., op. cit. p. 70.
153 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 133-134]
modern times, a v. Hofmann, a Thomasius, even a Hengstenberg, with their attempts to further develop this and that doctrine of the church, have pretty much — sit venia verbo — failed." Further on it says: "The indeed new impetus which the Christian doctrinal development has received from Schleiermacher has become as pernicious to doctrine as to life."
The most detailed proof that the advancement of doctrine attempted by modern theology is not an advancement of Christian doctrine, but an apostasy from it, was probably given by Dr. Walther in a series of articles found under the heading "What is it about the progress of modern Lutheran theology in doctrine?" in three volumes of Lehre und Wehre.519) Walther calls the theory according to which dogmas are formed only gradually "a Protestant-masked sister of Romanism" and a reshaping of the church "into a school of philosophers whose work it is to seek the truth eternally, while the church according to the Word of God is the 'home honor' to which the truth is entrusted as its most precious treasure, as its good supplement, that it may preserve it through the Holy Spirit, 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 1 Tim. 6:20." Walther also reminds us, together with the old Lutheran theologians, that the church, viewed historically, does not show a progressive and upward development of doctrine, but rather, as far as pure public doctrine is concerned, resembles the waxing and waning of the moon, "sometimes experiencing times of special visitations of grace, sometimes eclipses".520)
Finally, we refer back to what we have said in the section "Christianity as an absolute religion".521) We make attempts to educate ourselves only as long as and insofar as we do not yet know the Christian doctrine. After we have known it and insofar as we have known it by God's grace through faith in the Word of God, we stand worshiping before its unchanging divine greatness. As is well known, this is also the position of the holy angels towards the things which the apostles, sent from heaven by the Holy Spirit, proclaimed to us: εις α έπιϑνμοϋσιν άγγελοι παρακύψαι.522) "Repristination theology" is the only theology that has the right to exist in the Christian Church.523)
519) These are the volumes 1875, 1876, 1878.
520) L. u. W. 1868, p. 136 f.<w:t>521) p. 36-42.<w:t>522) 1 Petr. 1:12.
523) Jn. 8:31-32; 17:20; 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.; Eph. 2:20.
154 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 134-135]