20. Theology and method.

20. Theology and method.

If the question about the "dogmatic method" has the sense of where the theologian has to take the Christian doctrine from or which is the principium cognoscendi peculiar to theology, it is already clear from what has been said that every method, whatever it may call itself, is to be rejected which places another principle of knowledge next to Scripture, be it the church doctrine or the "faith consciousness" of the theologian or some other principle situated outside Scripture (extra Scripturam). What remains to be said here about "method" concerns primarily the question of the external grouping or order in which the doctrines present in Scripture can or should be presented for the purpose of teaching (docendi causa). We could have titled this section "Theology and the External Order of the Individual Doctrines of Scripture." However, we keep the term "method", because it was and still is customary to address especially the synthetic and analytical method, and following this, the necessary can be said about the importance, resp. unimportance of the grouping of the doctrines (within a corpus doctrinae).

Among the old Lutheran theologians, some advocate the synthetic, others the analytical method. While

173 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 150]

Flacius means: Theologia per synthesin commodissime traditur,569) Baier says quite certainly: Partes theologiae revelatae iuxta ordinem analyticum collocandae sunt570) In general description, synthetic method is understood as the arrangement of thoughts or of the material to be treated, whereby we progress from the causes to the effects or compose the whole from the given components.571) The analytical method follows the opposite order. It goes back from the effects to the causes, or it seeks to derive the whole from a particular part, e.g., the final end (finis)."572)

Applied to theology, the synthetic method deals first with God as the origin, as of all things, so also of the salvation of man, then with the causes and means by which sinful man is led to salvation, and finally with the last things, concluding with eternal salvation. According to the analytic method, the last things, that is, the salvation of man, are dealt with first, and from there, after considering the man who is to be led to salvation, we go back to the causes and means (Patris gratiosa voluntas, Filii redemptio, Spiritus Sancti gratia applicatrix, media gratiae, etc.). The later theologians think that they should follow the analytical method, because theology is a practical skill in which one must first recognize the goal (finis: salvation), in order to then examine the object in which the goal is to be achieved (subiectum operationis, man) and finally conclude with the consideration of the causes and means by which the final goal is achieved in the subiectum operationis.573)

The synthetic method is generally followed by the dogmatists from Melanchthon to Gerhard inclusive, thus, to

569) Clavis Scripturae, 5th edition, from 1674, II, 56. Flacius also adds a table that shows how the individual doctrines stand according to the different methods.

570) Compendium I, 76.

571) Flacius, Clavis, Jena 1674, p. 58.

572) Flacius, op. cit. Baier-Walther I, 29.

573) Quenstedt I, 25.

174 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 150-151]

name the main representatives of this period: Melanchthon,574) Chemnitz,575) Hutter,576) Gerhard.577) The Danish theologian Brochmand also belongs here.578)

We find the analytical method among the dogmatists a little before and then after the middle of the 17th century: among

574) Loci Communes Rerum Theologicarum seu Hypotyposes Theologiae, 1521. How in later editions (1535, 1543, especially 1548) the sola gratia was issued and Melanchthon became the father of synergism and majorism in the Lutheran Church is precisely stated by F. Bente in the Concordia Triglotta, "Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books”, pp. 128 ff. [Ed.- see here, # 154. The Father of Synergism.]

575) Loci Theologici, … quibus.et Loci Communes D. Philippi Melanchthonis perspicue explicantur et quasi integrum Christianae doctrinae corpus ecclesiae Dei sincere proponitur. Edited after Chemnitz's death (1586) by Polykarp Leyser, 1591, Chemnitz's Loci are meant not only as an extension but also as a correction of later editions of Melanchthon's Loci. However, Chemnitz himself was not completely satisfied with his Loci, but thought of a new edition, for which, however, he could no longer find the time and strength. Chemnitz's theological mastery comes to full fruition in his Examen Concilii Tridentini and in his writing De Duabus Naturis in Christo, 1571.

576) Loci Communes Theologici ex sacris literis diligenter eruti, veterum patrum testimoniis roborati et conformati ad methodum locorum Phil. Melanchthonis, 1619, also a kind of commentary on Melanchthon's Loci and also published by the Wittenberg faculty only after his death (1616). Hutter calls Melanchthon magnum illum Germaniae nostrae Phoenicem, virum undiquaque doctissimum deque re literaria universa praeclarissime meritum. At the same time, Hutter points to the later Melanchthon's sad (tristis) apostasy from the pure doctrine, but not without adding the remark: Haud tamen dubitamus, quin sub finem vitae seria acta poenitentia huius etiam peccati veniam a Christo et petiverit et impetrarit. Hutter's loci offer students of theology in detail what is briefly summarized in his Compendium Locorum Theologicorum for Gymnasien.

577) Loci Theologici cum pro adstruenda veritate, tum pro destruenda quorumvis contradicentium falsitate. 1610-1621 in 9 volumes; supplement 1625. edition by Cotta (1762-1781) in 20 volumes, with two index volumes by G. H. Müller, 1787. 1789. edition by Ed. Preuß (Berlin 1863-1865, Leipzig 1875) in 9 volumes, with an index volume by Löbe after G. H. Müller, Leipzig 1885.

578) Universae Theologiae Systema, 1633; 6th edition published in Ulm in 1658. Walch rightly praises this work (Bibliotheca Theol. I, 67). His exposition: quamvis haud diffitear, casus conscientiae haud apte ad theologiam dogmaticam relatos esse, is unjustified, because in a detailed exposition of Christian doctrine, answering questions of conscience is quite in order.

175 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 151]

Dannhauer,579) Friedrich König,580) Calov,581) Quenstedt,582) Baier,583) Hollaz.584) However, we find

579) Hodosophia Christiana, 1649. Dannhauer presents the Christian doctrine in 12 phaenomena in images taken from the Scriptures: Man a wanderer, Scripture the light, the Church the candlestick, God the goal, etc. The best edition is the one from 1713.

580) Theologia Positiva Acroamatica, 1664. Short guide to theological lectures, which also underlies Quenstedt's Systema.

581) Systema Locorum Theologicorum, 1655-1677, in 12 volumes. Carefully worked are the first, less carefully the last volumes. Calov is the most perceptive theologian of the 17th century. He is also a scriptural theologian, which Buddeus praises in him (Isagoge Hist. Theol., 1730, p. 357). Even today, a classic exegetical work is Calov's Biblia Illustrata. Calov is judged spitefully and unjustly by Tholuck and downright reviled (RE.1 II, 506). More justified assessment of Calov in RE.3 , p. 653 f., by J. Kunze.

582) Theologia Didactico-polemica sive Systema Theologiae, 1686, 1696, 1702, 1716. Called by Tholuck "the accountant and scribe" of orthodox theology (RE.1 XII, 421). The judgment does not apply factually because Quenstedt worked with his own judgment. In order to judge Quenstedt, one must have read him and compared him with other dogmatists. Also Walch's judgment (Bibliotheca Theol. I, 68), that of Quenstedt meritissimi ecclesiae nostrae doctores ob leviorem dissensum were counted among the opponents, is unjust. The synergism of Helmstedt and Musaeus is not levior dissensus. Walch is indifferentst and has also written too much. Even Tholuck, though he cannot quite suppress sneering remarks, describes Quenstedt as an unassuming, pious character without "bitter passion" (RET XII, 422). Walch also acknowledges that Quenstedt took much care with the scriptural evidence (loc. cit.).

583) Compendium Theologiae Positivae, 1686 u. oft. Baier is infected by Musaeus', his father-in-law's, synergistic point of view. The St. Louis edition, 1879, is not a mere reprint of Baier's Compendium, but is so expanded by inserted quotations that it comprises three volumes (in all 1332 pages of large octavo). In the included quotations not only Luther and the old theologians, but also the newer theologians of the 19th century have their say, so that the students are offered a source material, which enables them to judge both the old and the modern theology. Prof. Th. Bünger has provided an index of names and subjects for this edition of Walther's work, which has been done with excellent diligence and great expertise.

584) Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum, 1707. "The last genuine Lutheran dogmatist." Hollaz has not merely copied, but offers in his own presentation what has been taught from Luther on to his time within the Lutheran Church by its representatives. Following the analytical method, he brings the doctrine of eternal salvation already in the first part and concludes in the fourth part with the doctrines of the church, of the ministry, of the secular authorities and of the household. Hollaz is also rightly praised for having written a

176 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 152]

significant differences in the position of individual doctrines among the enthusiasts of the analytical method. Baier, for example, treats the last things: death, resurrection, the Last Judgment and the end of the world, before the doctrine of sin and the redemption through Christ (namely, in immediate connection with the finis theologiae ex parte hominis, the salvation). Quenstedt, on the other hand, places these doctrines at the very end of his dogmatics.

As far as the judgment on the synthetic and analytic and any other method is concerned, it should not be forgotten that the external arrangement of the individual doctrines is of secondary importance as long as the content of the doctrines is not falsified. In theology, as Rudelbach has also correctly observed, 585) everything depends on the concept of divine revelation being held throughout, that is, on all doctrines being taken merely from Scripture and not somehow cut to size in adherence to the method of Procrustes according to the view or "faith" of the theologizing subject. In theology, any method is to be rejected which, setting aside the Scriptural word, seeks to invent anything, whether the method be called synthetic or analytical, scientific or practical or otherwise. In theology there is nothing to invent, neither as far as the content is concerned nor as far as the context of the doctrines is concerned. Therefore, only such a method is ever appropriate to theology, which in principle limits itself to putting together what already exists through the revelation of Scripture. This is done in the so-called local method, according to which is compiled in one place (hence the individual doctrines are appropriately called loci)

careful scriptural proof (Krakewitz in the preface to the editio tertia). Unhistorically, peculiarities are attributed to Hollaz that do not belong to him, e.g. the explanation about the theologia irregenitorum (Wagenmann, RE.2 VI, 266 f.). That only a born-again person can be called a theologian in the proper sense of the word has been abundantly taught by the "orthodox" from Luther on, as Hollaz himself proves (Proleg. I, qu. 18-21). Hollaz's remark (Hutterus Red. 10, p. 44) that Hollaz recognizes the "religious moment" only "by bringing it afterwards in pious sighs" is explained partly by Hollaz's extra-Christian point of view, partly by his bad habit of coining witty-sounding catchwords, with which he caused much mischief among the studying youth in the church of the 19th century. Most moderns also judge Hollaz quite differently. Cf. Wagenmann (op. cit.).

585) Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1857, p. 382. Quoted in Baier-Walther I, 77.

177 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 152-153]

what is revealed about a particular doctrine in all of Scripture. And this is the basic idea of the synthetic method. More recent theologians say that the dogmatists who follow the local method have cut the dogmatic material into matters and have not brought to view the interrelation and the progress of the system.586) On the other hand, they consider the analytical method followed by later theologians to be more in line with science. Dorner says: "Georg Calixt established the analytical method, which soon found favor, even among his opponents, such as Calov, Dannhauer and Hülsemann. It [the analytic method] seeks to derive from a supreme truth, the highest good of mortal man, the individual dogmatic propositions as members and mediations of the supreme purpose. This supreme end is the salvation of man in the enjoyment of God."587) It must be admitted that the analytical method corresponds formally more to the demands of modern theology, which sees its scientific character in the fact that the Christian doctrine is not taken from the Holy Scriptures, but is developed from the ego of the theologian. Thus the analytic method, applied to theology, gives the appearance, however, as if, instead of drawing from Scripture alone, it wanted to derive, that is, find, the Christian doctrines by reasoning from the final purpose. Walther used to say in lectures: "The analytical method seeks to find the thing, as it were. But in theology we cannot infer the means from the end." To the credit of later theologians, however, it must be said that they mostly follow the analytic method only outwardly, that is, use this method only for the outward grouping of doctrines, but in fact hold fast to the Scripture Principle in the exposition of the individual doctrines. As Baier (I, 79) expressly emphasizes: Finis cognitio ex revelatione divina petita natura prior est cognitione mediorum itidem ex divina revelatione petita. Kirn, therefore, does not want to allow any distinction even among the "Old Protestant" dogmatists, because they hold the Scripture Principle. He says: "Old Protestant dogmatics, despite the alternating preference for the synthetic and analytic arrangement, proceeds according to an

586 Thus Dorner, Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, p. 531.

587) Op. cit.

178 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 153-154]

essentially uniform method. This can be briefly described as the method of formal [?] scriptural authority. It consists in the fact that the individual biblical statements, understood as doctrinal revelation … directly determine the content and form of the dogmatic propositions. Its support is found in the theory [?] of the verbal inspiration of Scripture."588)

Kirn rightly says that the unified method of old Protestant dogmatics finds its support in the verbal inspiration of Scripture. The old dogmatists would not have held so strongly to sola Scriptura — even against dissenters in their own midst, e.g. against Calixt's Consensus quinquesaecularis — if they had not been convinced that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. Now because verbal inspiration is not, as Kirn thinks, a "theory," that is, not an intemperate private view of the old Protestant dogmatists, but the authoritative view of Christ and His apostles, it serves the urgent need for clarity in theological teaching if we divide the Protestant theologians of the present day into two classes according to their principled position on Holy Scriptures. We do not ask whether they follow the synthetic or analytic method, nor whether within these methods they use incidentally the definitional or causal method, or both. Rather, we ask all theologians, regardless of the country in which they live, whether they still consider the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God and want to draw and standardize Christian doctrine from them alone, or whether they have already become so "modern" that they no longer consider the Scriptures to be the Word of God and the only source and standard of theology, but have set out to offer the Christian church an ego product. With the former, understanding is possible, even with errors present. With the latter, understanding is impossible because of the lack of common ground. Contra principium negantem disputari non potest. In this we can credit to love certain modern theologians who have departed from the Scripture Principle what they inconsistently leave standing of the Christian doctrine. At the same time, however, it is our duty to always emphatically remind students that all theologians who have abandoned the Scriptural principle belong in one

588) Grundriß der ev. Dogmatik3 , p. 4.

179 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 154-155]

class. We would unnecessarily burden the theological study and at the same time have a confusing effect if we wanted to present to the students as theologically important, for example, that a certain theologian who has in principle renounced Scripture as Word of God and wants to deliver an ego product is determined more to the left by Ritschl or more to the right by Frank.

In order to push the Christian church away from the scriptural method and to adjust it to the ego method, modern theology raises the objection that the theologian does not even know where to begin in presenting the Christian doctrine from the scriptures. We have already seen that Frank, for example, argues in this way. Ihmels also argues in the same way when he says:589) "It [dogmatics] must not be content with merely compiling the biblical doctrinal statements. Without further ado, it would also have to be made clear to someone who was still so inclined to such a view that the question would already have to embarrass him at which point he now had to begin with the presentation of the statements of Scripture and how he had to link them." This would be a fatal situation, however, if those who only accept the Scripture Principle wanted to or should write dogmatics, but did not know where to begin. Without a beginning in dogmatics there would also be no middle of dogmatics and no end of dogmatics. In short, all those who hold to the Scripture Principle in dogmatics would indeed be minus dogmatics. At least they should be "by right" without dogmatics. Against this we refer first to the fact that in Luther and the old theologians, although they adhere tenaciously to the Scripture Principle, we perceive no "embarrassment" at all about the beginning. As is well known, Luther recounts his faith "piece by piece" "before God and all the world" at the end of his writing "Confession of the Supper of Christ" (1528).590) He begins with the "high article of the divine majesty, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, one right some, natural, true God," that is, with the article of the Trinity. Then follow the articles of the person of Christ, of the work of Christ, of sin, of justification (by faith in Christ as opposed to all works doctrine), of the

589) From the church, its doctrines and life under the section "Issue and meaning of dogmatics," p. 121.

590) St. L. XX, 1094 ff.

180 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 155]

Means of Grace, Of the Church. The article on the resurrection of the dead concludes the book. The joyful and confident way in which Luther confesses his faith "piece by piece" does not give rise to the thought that Luther was at a loss for a starting point. In his catechisms, Large and Small, Luther has a different starting point. He does not begin with the article of the Trinity, but with the Ten Commandments, that is, with the Law. But again, we do not see any embarrassment about the starting point. In the ancient dogmatists, because they follow partly the synthetic and partly the analytical method, we find even opposite starting points. Flacius, in characterizing the synthetic and the analytic method, says quite correctly: Methodus analytica prorsus contrarium cursum et ordinem synthesi tenet. Haec [the analytic method] incipit, ubi illa [the synthetic method] desiit, et contra, ibi desinit, ubi illa inceperat. And although Flacius prefers the synthetic to the analytic method, he still wants both to grow side by side: Licet theologia commodissime per synthesin tradatur, tamen et analyticam methodum aliquo modo recipere posset, ut adiuncta tabula testatur. Finis enim theologiae, de quo nos miseri homines maxime angimur, est vita aeterna, sicut ille [the rich young man] ex Christo quaerit, Matt. 19:16.591) So also we will not dare to deny the dogmatic right to exist to one or the other part because of the different grouping of the individual doctrines. The reason for this is that both parts, as Kirn admits, "follow an essentially uniform method" despite the different starting points, namely, they take the individual doctrines from Scripture. In fact, with regard to the starting point in the exposition of Christian doctrine, it stands that we can begin in the front or in the back or even in the middle. If the beginning is made from the Scriptures and we stay with the Scriptures, we always come very soon to medias res, to the center of the Christian doctrine, namely to the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins through faith in the incarnate Son of God, who is the propitiation for our sin and the sin of the whole world. The reason for this lies in the solid inner unity that is inherent in the theology taken from Scripture. We could start with the eternity, with the eternal

591) Clavis II, 58.

181 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 155-156]

Gospel of Christ, which was hidden from the world, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by command of the eternal God to establish the obedience of faith among all the heathen, 592) as John begins both his gospel and his first epistle from the eternal Son of God, who appeared in time, and from here soon arrives at the center, namely at the forgiveness of sins through faith in the blood and death of the Son of God. We could also begin with the eternity that follows this temporality for us men, namely with the eternal salvation of those who have come out of great tribulation and have washed their robes and made their garments clear in the blood of the Lamb.593) Here, too, it is not difficult to follow what the Scriptures teach about man and his misery of sin, as well as about the redemption that came through Christ, and about the appropriation of the redemption that has taken place. We could also start in the middle, for example with the sermon of the angel in the field near Bethlehem: "Do not be afraid! Behold, I proclaim unto you great joy, which shall be to all people: for unto you is born this day a Savior, which is Christ the Lord." 594) Going backward and forward from here, we could connect what the Scriptures teach of man's killing guilt of sin and of God's saving grace. In short, one can start at various points in the exposition of Christian doctrine without mischief, provided one begins, continues, and ends with Scripture. Only one starting point is sinister and forbidden within the Christian Church. The starting point of theology must not be "the religious experience", "the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject", the subject that rejects the Holy Scriptures as God's infallible Word and therefore what it teaches, not from the Scriptures, but from its own subject, in contradiction with Christ's instruction to remain with His Word, and in contradiction with the judgment of His Apostle, who withdraws the licentia docendi from any teacher who does not remain with the sound words of Christ, because such a one suffers from conceit and ignorance. Ihmels also wants to protect this starting point, which is forbidden in Scripture, as the only

592) Rom. 16:25. 26.<w:t>593) Rev. 7:14-17; Matt. 25:34.

594) Luke 2:10, 11.

182 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 156-157]

possible one when he says: “Even if the Scripture wanted to give a uniform whole of doctrine [wanted? the Scripture wants to be "uniformly" the Word of God505)] and it would be possible for dogmatics to reproduce only this whole of doctrine, one could not calm down in dogmatics because dogmatics basically wants to represent the knowledge of faith.” Certainly, dogmatics basically wants to present the knowledge of faith, but the knowledge of faith that remains in Christ's word, in the word of the apostles and prophets, in the word of Scripture, that always testifies only vis-à-vis the word of Scripture. Faith without the Word of Scripture is faith "in the air", not faith that says: "Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth!" but unbelief that does not believe the testimony that God has testified of His Son, and therefore makes God a liar in His Word.596)

Perhaps herewith the necessary is said about the external grouping of the Christian doctrines within a corpus doctrinae. Following this, we will review the nature of modern theology, insofar as it acts from its point of view as an accuser against all representatives of scriptural theology.

The Christian church of our time must not conceal from itself that it has in the modern theologians, who instead of teaching from Scripture alone want to teach from their own consciousness, a hostile power in its own midst, which is bent on pushing it, the Christian church, away from the Word of Scripture and thus from the foundation of its faith. This hostility to the Scripture Principle is also clearly discerned from the criticisms leveled by modern theology against the persons and writings of the ancient theologians who held to the Scripture Principle. This criticism is also extended to the persons and writings of such theologians of our time who also hold to sola Scriptura. They are registered, as we have already seen in another context, as "repristination theologians." The church fellowship from which this dogmatic is written, the Missouri Synod, also falls under this criticism. Other synods in this country and in other countries that stand in church fellowship with the Missouri Synod,

595) ϑεόπνενοτος 2 Tim. 3:16; τα λόγια τον ϑεοϋ, Rom. 3:2; ον δνναται λνϑήναι, Jn. 10:35; Old and New Testament "unified" Holy Spirit word, 1 Petr. 1:10-12.

596) 1 John 5:9, 10.

183 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 157-158]

are subjected to the same criticism. "Criticism" is a mild term. Criticism actually takes the form of decisive accusations. We believe that we should make special reference to this here, although the matter has already been dealt with many times in other connections. The theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are openly accused of having taken the Holy Scriptures for the Word of God, or, as it is more frequently expressed, of having "identified" Scripture and the Word of God. We read, "The fault … lies in the defective or lacking distinction between the Bible and the Word of God." 597) "Perfected was the doctrine of inspiration by the Protestant scholastics of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries since the example given by Johann Gerhard as early as 1610 in Locus de Scriptura and continued in 1625 in Exegesis Uberior Loci de Scriptura. It was believed that the Catholics, the Socinians, the Arminians and other parties could be fought victoriously only. if the divine prestige of Scripture was extended to the letter [to the words of Scripture]. The Bible was … a divine religious textbook." 598) A second charge, related to the foregoing general accusation, is to the effect that the ancient theologians, because they taught only from and according to Scripture, had exercised a pernicious influence on the Christian Church. They would have promoted "intellectualism," dead intellectual Christianity. "Living" Christianity could only be achieved by doctrines from the "Christian experience" or the "pious self-consciousness" of the theologizing individual. That Ihmels also raises the charge against the first church as well as against Luther and the Reformation period, as well as against the old dogmatists, that they promoted "intellectualism" because they appealed directly to Scripture, has already been explained in more detail above.599) Another accusation is that among the old theologians from Luther on up to Hollaz inclusive there is almost no disagreement in doctrines. For this and nothing else is the meaning of the accusation that the individual dogmatists lack "independent reproduction" of the Christian doctrine. They would have looked at the matter as if "in terms of content" nothing more could be changed in the traditional doctrine of faith, and progress could be made only in a more certain conceptual

597) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 245.<w:t xml:space="preserve">598) op. cit. p. 249.

599) Under the section "The closer description of theology, conceived as doctrines," 70 ff.

184 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 158-159]

formulation of inviolable statutes". The new version of the statutes is also "almost non-existent" in Quenstedt. In Quenstedt, too, new things are found "almost not at all".600) We can understand that this lack of disunity alienates modern theology. After all, it perceives in its own midst a "sheer endless abundance of diversities," having agreed on a "uniform method," namely, the method of drawing Christian doctrine not from the one Holy Scriptures but from the "religious experience" of the many theologizing individuals. Even the positive among the experiential theologians regard agreement in Christian doctrine as an abnormality. "Pure doctrine" is introduced with a "so-called." Therefore, however, it is understandable that the fact of the "essential agreement" of the ancient theologians for two centuries seems uncanny to the modern theologians. Therefore they search and find also an explanation for this fact. But their explanation is historically incorrect. Namely, they claim that the ancient dogmatists were guilty of "dogmatic exegesis" in general, interpreting Scripture according to the "church doctrinal concept," especially according to the Formula of Concord. Not only is Quenstedt denied "sound scriptural research," but Chemnitz is also said to have interpreted Melanchthon's loci "according to the canon of the Formula of Concord." The same false accusation is leveled by the great majority of recent theologians against the whole of "Old Protestant dogmatics."601) We put here what we have stated in more detail elsewhere602) : "It must be called a myth, which goes unchecked from mouth to mouth, that the Lutheran dogmatists were people who actually registered dogmas only according to the doctrinal tradition and according to the guidance of the symbols, but cared little for the proof of Scripture and the elevation of the doctrine from Scripture. Whoever has taken the trouble to get to know the great dogmatists, e.g. Gerhard, Quenstedt, Calov, only to some extent — already the examination of even one locus would suffice — will be of a completely different opinion. With Gerhard, the exposition of the doctrines from Scripture is the beginning, middle and end. The scriptural passages, which the false teachers cite for themselves

600) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 26 ff.

601) Kirn, Grundriß 3, p. 4. Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 25 ff. Dorner, Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, p. 559. Gaß, Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik I, 338.

602) Zur Einigung der amerikanisch-lutherischen Kirche 2, p. 654.[sic:, page # is actually p. 65; Conversion and Election, p. 90 f .].

185 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 159]

are treated in such detail by Gerhard according to the context in which they stand and according to the use of language that too much rather than too little has been done to the matter. Quenstedt, whom one has called the great 'accountant of Lutheran theology,' offers in his great dogmatic work in the notes to the ϑέσις and under the sections βεβαίωσις and έκδίκησις [Ed.-- refutation] chiefly scriptural exposition. That Calov was a great scriptural theologian is evident not only from his 'Biblia Illustrata' but from all his major writings. Calov was also the one who repeatedly inculcated in the students of theology that the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was much more necessary for them than the study of the Fathers and the Scholastics.603) In Meusel's Lexicon, someone writes aptly against the popular disparagement of the old theologians as scriptural theologians: 'The proof of Scripture occupies a prominent place and wide space in the old Lutheran dogmatics. Especially the authors of the Loci, but also those of the later Systemata, are serious about the Holy Scriptures not merely as a subsequent standard of doctrine drawn from elsewhere, but as their principal source, and they raise from it the dogmatic truths, which they justify logically and defend against the objections of the opponents, so that, for example, the dogmatic works of Chemnitz and Johann Gerhard are at the same time a treasure trove of the most thorough exegetical discussions.” 604) The home of "dogmatic exegesis" is not to be found with the theology of the 16th and 17th centuries, as the accusation reads, but is found with the accuser, in the camp of modern theology. This theology, after all, resolutely refuses to let its faith arise and be standardized by the doctrines of Scripture. That would be, according to its own explicit explanation, "intellectualistic" use of Scripture. Rather, it wants to interpret and standardize Scripture according to its own view, according to the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject. This is truly "dogmatic exegesis" in the eminent sense of the word. And from this eminently dogmatic exegesis is also easily and unceremoniously explained "the sheer endless abundance" of doctrinal differences, which modern theology nevertheless

603) Calov, Theol. Antisyncretistica, th. 4: Theologiae studioso longe magis necessaria est linguae Hebraicae et Graecae notitia quam theologiae scholasticae aut patrum studium aut philosophiae.

604) Sub voce "Scriptural Evidence" VI, 93.

186 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 160]

faces with a somewhat embarrassed face despite the occasional expressions of joy about "the multiplicity of the individualities of faith". The fact that in the period from Luther to Hollaz, on the other hand, there is a lack of doctrinal diversity can be easily explained by the fact that Kirn told us when he said that he was embarrassed by the diversity of doctrinal differences. That, on the other hand, in the period from Luther to Hollaz there is a lack of the missed abundance of doctrinal differences is easily and unceremoniously explained by the fact to which Kirn drew our attention when he said that "Old Protestant dogmatics, despite the alternating preference for the synthetic and the analytic method, proceeds according to an essentially uniform method," namely, the method of taking Christian doctrine from Holy Scriptures. This unified method naturally yields a unified result, scil. unity in doctrines. God has arranged the Holy Scriptures in such a way that the knowledge of the truth is not only possible, but the straying from the truth is excluded, as long as we stay with the words of the Scriptures, as Christ testifies very clearly when he promises us the knowledge of the truth in John 8, if we stay with his words. — So much here about the apostasy criticism that modern theology makes of the persons and writings of the old Lutheran dogmatists.

The condemnatory criticism that modern theology makes of the old Protestant theology from Luther to Hollaz is consequently extended to the theologians and church fellowships of the present day who still hold the Scriptures to be the Word of God and therefore also insist that Christian doctrine be taken and judged from Scripture alone. The criticism is all the more severe because it is bound up with the fear that Scripture would again be taken for God's Word in the church of the present day, and thus the theology of pious self-consciousness would be set off course. On the one hand, modern theology, as we have heard repeatedly, uses very confident language. For example, "Dogmatic method is relatively uniform nowadays." "No one bases his dogmatics in the old Protestant manner on the norma normans, the Bible." "In the present day, the orthodox doctrine of inspiration has little dogmatic significance." The few theologians who still advocate it are "stragglers," "their number is small, their efforts fruitless, their displeasure with the comrades who are paving the way anew to the forefront, unimpressive." On the other hand, however, there is no lack of expressions of fear that what has been thoroughly dismissed and is lying on the ground might awaken to new life. Thus it is said of the few theologians who, as "latecomers,"

187 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and Concept of Theology. [English ed. 160-161]

make no impression on their peers that they are "not without danger to the church." Quite recently, Horst Stephan also calms the modern-theological camp first with the assurance: "Today the doctrine of inspiration has been abandoned by scientific theology," but he adds: "It only continues to have a powerful effect in lay orthodoxy . . still strongly lingers." 605) So there is a fear of a reaction from lay circles. In the latest issue of the "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" (New Church Publication)606) an article writer reckons with the possibility that in the present time "in a similar way the retreat to an unevangelical standpoint of authority is being carried out [meaning the retreat to Scripture as the Word of God], as can be perceived in the repristination theology of the first half of the 19th century." At the same time, we see from these expressions of fear that modern theology has lost Christian insight to the extent that it considers the return to Scripture as the Word of God a calamity to be fought with might.607)

We should not be surprised, therefore, that especially the American Lutherans, who hold to the Scripture Principle and consequently are also united in Christian doctrine, are considered a less desirable part of the Christian church and are relegated to the background as representatives of "Repristination Theology". This criticism applies especially to the Missouri Synod and its writings. Dr. Walther, to whom, however, the leading role among the fathers of the Missouri Synod is rightly attributed, appears in Zöckler's "Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschaften" as a curiosity next to Kohlbrügge, Gaußen and Kuyper, because he teaches the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures "in the old orthodox sense".608) Walther is counted among the class of 19th century "repristination theologians." Others have called him a "theologian of quotations," implying — though not always — that he was not to be classified as a theologian of Scripture.

605) Glaubenslehre, 1921, p. 52.

606) Neue Kirchl. publication, 1923, p. 110.

607) The above-mentioned article in the "Neue Kirchl. Zeitschrift" also provides evidence for this. It is considered as a striving for reprehensible theology of repristination that — according to a report by Ebrard — in the middle of the thirties of the last century at the University of Erlangen the Lutheran students of theology acquired the symbolic books already in the first year of study.

608) Manual 2 III, 149.

188 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and Concept of Theology. [English ed. 161-162]

Walther has been both severely rebuked and praised, albeit with qualification, in the United States as well as in Germany and other countries.609) His name appears in dogmatic textbooks up to this time, and also for the purpose of characterizing at the same time the theological nature and church position of the Missouri Synod. If we are to summarize our own judgment of Walther, we would like to call him the apologist of Luther's theology of Scripture and of the theology of Scripture of the Old Protestant dogmatists, insofar as the latter have proved to be genuine representatives of Luther's theology of Scripture. Thus Walther becomes at the same time the apologist of the theologians of the present day, who are brought under the designation of "repristination theologians" because, as far as the scriptural method is concerned, they walk in the paths of the old Lutheran theologians. The charges leveled by modern theology against Luther and the old Protestant dogmatists up to Hollaz are, as we have seen, lack of scientific sense in the apprehension of theological problems, mechanical use of Scripture by direct appeal to the "It is written," spread of intellectualism, unquestioning adoption of traditional doctrines, and so on. All these charges are eviscerated by Walther in detail and proven to be factually false charges. And this is done not only theoretically, but also practically. Walther freely and openly confesses: We American Lutherans walk in the paths of Luther and the old theologians which you fight against. But come to us and examine the result before your eyes. Go through our congregations, attend our pastoral conferences and our Synod conventions, and then ask yourselves whether what you have heard and seen really bears the character of mere sanity Christianity and mere repristination theology. To the great multitude of accusers, the defender should be given the floor in regard to the main points of accusation. Walther dealt with these points in detail in the preface to “Lehre und Wehre“ of 1875. As far as the position of the Christian Church toward science is concerned, Walther takes the position of which science it must zealously cultivate and which science it must close the door to according to God's will. The science which the church has to cultivate

609) RE.2 IX, 85; XVIII, 687 ff.

189 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 162]

and must be regarded as a great gift of God, is the training in all worldly knowledge which the church needs as an external apparatus for the direction of its calling in the world, for the teaching and preaching of the gospel. This includes what serves the general training of the mind; in general, what is usually summarized under humanistic education. In particular, Walther urges with Luther the study of history [Ed.- ? "humanities" in English edition], the classical languages and for theologians "in full equipment" the study of the original languages of the Holy Scriptures. He says: "The spirit of Carlstadt, the Anabaptists and other enthusiasts who despise science as something useless, even dangerous and carnal, and instead boast of the inspirations of the 'spirit' has no place among us. We are not of the opinion that the church should flee into the desert, sit down on the isolation stool for the sake of its self-preservation, close itself off from the unbelieving world, let the enemies outside it, abandon and let pass away the anti-religious educated, to whom the gospel can only be brought in a certain form, and address itself only to the uneducated people. No; we recognize it as our sacred duty to become all things to all people, so that we may save some everywhere. We heartily agree with Melanchthon when he once wrote: 'An Iliad of evils is an unlearned theology'. (Corpus Ref. XI, 278.)" Walther points out the seriousness with which Luther urged education in all the "liberal arts" as useful to all estates, and adds, "How could we call ourselves even Lutherans, or even just Christians, if we were despisers of science?"

Of course, Walther speaks in particular detail, according to the circumstances of the time, about the sense in which science should not be allowed a home in the church. He writes: "We do not want to know anything about a science that wants to play the mistress and master of the Scriptures, instead of only helping to find the truth contained in the Scriptures, wants to sit in judgment over them and correct them from itself, which, instead of remaining in its sphere, wants to raise the laws that happen to be valid in its field to general ones and impose them also on the field of Scripture. Such μετάβασις εις αλλο γένος we consider as idolatrous as unscientific. We agree entirely with Melanchthon when

190 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. - 162-163]

he writes: 'As it would be madness to say that one can judge the Christian doctrine from the rules of the shoemaker's trade, so they err who ascribe to philosophy a judgment about the same'. (Scholia in epist. ad Col.,, p. 68.) No matter how confident science may claim that the results of its research are absolutely certain truths, we do not consider them, but rather the Scriptures, to be infallible. If the results of scientific research contradict clear Scripture, we are certain from the outset that they are nothing but certain error, even if we are not able to prove it as such other than by calling on Scripture. Therefore, whenever we have to choose between science and Scripture, we say with Christ our Lord: 'Scripture cannot be broken' John 10:35, and with the holy apostle: 'We take all reason captive to the obedience of Christ' 2 Cor. 10:5. We do not wait for science to conquer our reason first. We already have it, and it stands before all scientific investigation or examination as firmly as our God who took it. Whatever science may bring to light, it neither gives us faith nor takes it away. We stand on a rock of which we know that not even the gates of hell, let alone human science, can overpower it, and therefore laugh at all enemies and their scientific battering rams and wall-breakers with which they bury the sky-high rock rising from the raging waters of the world with mad fury. For thus saith the Lord, 'Whosoever shall fall upon this rock shall be dashed to pieces; but upon whomsoever it shall fall, it shall crush him,' Matt. 21:44."

Walther also exposes the abuse that modern theology makes of the so-called reborn ego or enlightened reason. He says: "Through enlightenment, reason does not receive its own light besides the Scriptures; rather, its enlightenment consists precisely in the fact that, through the action of the Holy Spirit, the word of the prophets and apostles has become its only light in matters of faith. ... Insofar as it wants to disputes from its principles against the articles of faith, insofar it is not born again, because the born again reason disputes from the principles of the Word of God." Walther also urgently warns the Christian church against the opinion that its doctrines can be developed further by the means of modern science.

191 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed.- 163-164]

He justifies this warning thus: "We consider the Holy Scriptures to be so clear with regard to the objects of our faith that we do not remotely hope that a new article of faith, hitherto unknown and closed to the Church, will be opened up to us or has already been opened up to us by the newer greater scientific aids. We do not believe in a growth of the Church in knowledge through the gradual emergence of dogmas. Rather, we believe that the Church of the first century was already in possession of all those dogmas that are truly biblical dogmas. We do not consider the apostolic church to be the church in its infancy, which only gradually ripens into manhood through the work of scientifically educated theologians; rather, we are firmly convinced that the church, with regard to the clarity and purity of its knowledge, is like the moon, which soon wanes, soon waxes again, and even experiences sad eclipses at times. We renounce not only such ingredients of science to theology, which virtually contradict the biblical truth, but in short, everything that is supposed to supplement our biblical theology; for God forbids not only to oppose His word, but just as strictly to add to it, Deut. 12:32."

Walther comments on the reconciliation (synthesis) between theology and science that is strived for in our time: "As certain as we are that a real contradiction between Christian theology and true science, science in abstracto, does not and cannot take place, we do not consider it at all the task of a theologian nor possible to ever reconcile our biblical theology and science as it exists in concreto. The reproach that is raised against us, that we do not try to lead the present generation, which is sunk in unbelief, back to faith also in our part, by showing the world the harmony of Christian faith and science, this reproach is well-founded; but we do not regard it as a reproach, but rather as a glory, which we never want to be taken away by God's grace. For we are firmly assured that even the present apostate world cannot be helped by the lie that divine revealed truth stands in the most beautiful harmony with the wisdom of this world, but only by it.

192 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. — 164-165]

preaching to it the divine foolishness, the old unchanged gospel, of which Paul and the history of the church of all times and of every individual Christian testify that it is a power of God which makes blessed all who believe in it, the Jews in particular and also the Greeks. A man who is won to Christianity by being shown how Christianity can stand the severest test of science is not yet won, his faith is not yet faith."

To refute the charge that the return to the theology of Luther and the dogmatists "implies a slavish submission to the doctrinal decisions of the dogmatists or of Luther or of the symbols, Walther issues the following general invitation: "Come and see! Go from parish to parish and from church to church in our fellowship and see whether there is a so-called dead orthodoxism and not rather a living experiential knowledge that has matured under inner struggles! Visit our pastoral conferences, which are held regularly between our annual Synod conventions, and see whether there is that business spirit which regards ministry as a trade for earning a living, and whether there is not rather a lively theological life and concern to know how a servant of Christ should walk in the house of God, which is the congregation of the living God. Take part in our Synod conventions and see if there is an iurare in verba magistri and not rather that sense of Luther: 'Unless I am overcome and convicted with testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or with public, clear and bright reasons and causes, I cannot and will not retract anything.'" — About the "citation theology", which has been attributed to Walther especially because of his writing "The Voice of Our Church in the Question of Church and Ministry"610) , he himself speaks thus: "When we Lutherans of America unfurled again the old good banner of our church and gathered around it again in closed ranks, while around us Zwinglianism, enthusiasm and rationalism sailed under the Lutheran flag, then it was immediately said: again a new sect! Some called out: You are on the road to Rome! You are Unionists! still others: You are Independents! Still others: You are pietists, enthusiasts,

— - - - - - - - --

610) First edition 1852, 3 1874 [1875].

193 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. — 165-166]

Donatists, Calvinists! — and who may name all the sects that should have risen again and become new with us? In short, we were to be everything, but not what we ourselves declared to want to be: confessors of the doctrines of the Reformation, Lutherans. What could and had we to do now, if we did not want to be labeled a sect? As long as we were denied the character of being faithful Lutherans, we had to continue to call upon the dear confession and the old, undisputedly faithful teachers of our church to stand up for us as our witnesses. And we think we have done it in such a way that whoever would but see it must see it, that we have not followed those faithful teachers of our church blindly, but in living conviction, are not their mindless followers and copycats, but their sons, so that we have always been able to say, 'I believe, therefore I speak.'" — To the charge that the American Lutheran Church has substituted symbols for Scripture, or interpreted Scripture according to symbols, or practiced "symbololatry," Walther replies, "As incomparably valuable as the pure confession of our church has been to us above all, we ourselves have never submitted to it as a doctrinal law imposed upon us, but have rather accepted it with joyful thanksgiving to God for His unspeakable grace solely because we have found in it our own confession. Our American Lutheran Church has also had to fight many a hard battle with the proud sects here, against whom we naturally could not hold the testimony of our fathers, and whoever has been a witness to these battles knows that God's written Word has proved a victorious weapon even in our weak hands." — About the valuation of the old dogmatists Walther expresses himself thus: "By the way, those do not know us who call our theology that of the 17th century. As highly as we esteem the immense work done by the great Lutheran dogmatists of that period, it is not really they to whom we have returned, but above all our dear Concordia and Luther, in whom we have recognized the man whom God has chosen to be the Moses of His Church of the New Covenant, to lead out of it His Church which has fallen into the bondage of the anti-Christian, the pillar of smoke and fire of the golden and pure Word of God in front. The dogmatics of that time, however immeasurably rich treasures of knowledge and experience are stored up in them,

194 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 166]

so that we learn from them with pleasure and joy day and night, are neither our Bible nor our confession, but rather we already perceive in them here and there a turbidity of that stream which gushed forth so crystalline in the 16th century. Also in more recent theological writings we find the notice that Baier's Compendium Theologiae Positivae of Walther has been republished in St. Louis. This has probably given rise to the opinion among some as if the old dogmatists and especially Baier had been regarded by Walther and in general within the Missouri Synod as the actual "standard theologians." Thus, for example, we read in Nitzsch-Stephan611) the note: "Baier wrote the Compendium Theologiae Positivae (1686), which summarizes the mild orthodoxy of Musaeus; it spread exceedingly rapidly and widely and still conveys the old Protestant dogmatics to the newly orthodox Lutherans (!), especially of America: newly published Preuß, Berlin 1864, and by Walther, St. Louis 1879 ff." We have already noted above612) that Walther's edition is not a mere reprint of Baier's Compendium, but has been expanded into an entirely new book by the insertion of copious and often very detailed quotations. In the inserted quotations, not only Luther and the representatives of Old Protestant dogmatics, but also the main representatives of 19th century dogmatics have their say. The purpose of Walther's edition, as has already been noted, is to provide students of theology with the richest possible source material, which will enable them to orient themselves about the state of theology in the past and in the present. Walther writes about this: "We [American Lutherans] seek to obtain for ourselves an exact knowledge of what is at present written against Christian truth, and do not conceal the attacks of the present with their specious apparatus even from our studying youth, convinced that he who has thoroughly and vividly known the truth possesses therein the sure preservative against infection even with the most apparent error."613) A part of the quotations that Walther has added to his edition of Baier are also meant as

611) Lehrbuch der ev. Dogmatik, 3rd edition, edited by Horst Stephan 1912. p. 29.

612) P. 175, footnote 583. <w:t xml:space="preserve">613) L. u. W. 1875, p. 68.

195 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 166-167]

corrections of Baier's text. As far as "the mild orthodoxy of Musaeus" is concerned, which is ascribed to Baier by Nitzsch-Stephan and which shows itself in particular in synergistic ways of speech of Baier, Walther used to excuse with the fact that Baier was Musaeus' son-in-law.614)

In the foregoing, Walther's words describe the ecclesiastical condition of our American Lutheran Church, which is said to have fallen into a mere "Repristination Theology" together with a "mechanical view of Scripture" and "dead orthodoxy". The author of this dogmatic could not help but be convinced of this, because he had the opportunity to attend hundreds of congregational meetings, pastoral conferences and Synod conventions during a period of more than forty years. It is self-evident in the ecclesia militans that during all this time weaknesses and infirmities have more or less always come to light and are still coming to light. We would like to point out one more point which refers to the unity in doctrines. This complete agreement in doctrine has caused offense in this country and also in Germany, and has often been commented on rather unobjectively and even presented as the result of bowing to the authority of one man. Nothing can be more perverse. We still knew most of the fathers of the Synod personally. They were not only fundamentally different, but in part also very strong and independent characters, so that, to speak humanly, one might have expected that they would very soon diverge in different directions. That this did not happen has appeared to us the longer, the more as a testimony to the unifying power of the Word of God. Even the different political views at the time of the American Civil War, which became strongly noticeable here and there and also emerged in public meetings, could not destroy the unity of faith based on the Scriptures through the action of the Holy Spirit. People called out to one another, "Politics has not brought us together, neither shall it drive us apart."

It might not seem quite appropriate that the church situation in our American Lutheran Church should be described in some detail in a dogmatic writing. However, it must first be considered that our church is thought of more or less extensively in the newer and newest theological

614) On the Unification of the American Lutheran Church 2, p. 38. [English translation: Conversion and Election, pg 53; text file here].

196 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 167]

literature — and especially in the dogmatic literature. As we have seen, this is done in an accusatory and condemnatory manner, as if we were spreading dead orthodoxy with our adherence to the Scripture Principle, i.e. as if we were to be regarded as an evil in the Christian Church. In this respect alone, an oratio pro domo would be in order. Then, in this forced self-defense, we always keep in mind the purpose of self-exhortation. When we think of what God gave to our fathers and what, by God's grace, is still predominantly found among us, then we also address to ourselves, to the present and possibly still coming generation, the urgent admonition to hold fast to the way of the first church, the Reformation and the fathers of our synod. Finally, we do not lose sight of the interest of the universal Church of the present. Modern theologians rightly demand of dogmatics that it not isolate itself, but place itself in the midst of the actual situation of the Church of the present. If we now examine the situation of the Church and its theology in the present, we cannot escape the perception that it is a situation of great embarrassment. It is true that the flight of theology from the Holy Scriptures and its entry into the "storm-free castle" of pious human self-consciousness is said to be a necessary advance in theological method. But besides this, there is a noticeable uneasiness about the result of this theological move, namely about the apparent chaos in the doctrines. This chaos is actually seen as an ideal state only by the extreme left, which with Lessing does not want any "certainty of truth" at all. For this reason, voices have already been raised in the modern-theological camp as to whether a return to the abandoned castle of the divine authority of Scripture should not be considered. These voices have not yet made any perceptible impression on the majority of the ichtheologians. In great self-deception, the fear is repeatedly expressed that with a return to the Scripture Principle "dead orthodoxy" will make its entrance into the Christian Church. Therefore, Walther's detailed description of the state of affairs in our American Lutheran Church, which has remained in the old castle, has triumphed in it and from it, should also find attention outside our ecclesiastical community and suggest the thought

197 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 168]

that what has proven itself in the American Lutheran Church should also prove to be the right church-building means in other countries. Experto crede Ruperto, Luther used to say when praising the power of the Word of God. If, for example, in Germany, the theological teachers and pastors, instead of accusing Luther and the dogmatists, were to return by God's grace to their theological method (sola Scriptura and sola gratia, resp. satisfactio vicaria), then, in accordance with the divine promise, a true Lutheran ecclesiastical system would again arise in Germany, and doctrinal confusion would be replaced by agreement in doctrine; for: Έάν υμείς μείνητε έν τφ λόγω τφ έμφ, … γνώαεσϑε την άλήϑειαν. [Ed.- John 8:31-32 — "if ye continue in My Word, then... ye shall know the truth"] [Ed.- NOTE!! – green shaded areas pp 197-202 missing in English edition.] At present, indeed, the separation of church and state has been officially pronounced in Germany. This has brought to the fore the question of how the Church of Germany should reorganize itself to secure its life under the changed circumstances. The episcopal constitution was thought of and in part already introduced. There is nothing to be said against the episcopal constitution in itself; but without a return to the word of the apostles and prophets as God's infallible word, the foundation on which the Christian church is built is missing, and even the "bishops" are only a piece of decoration which covers the sad state of affairs in the church. At present the complaint is going through Lutheran countries and Lutheran parts of the country that not only the great Roman sect, but also the various Reformed sects are particularly zealous in propaganda. Without a return to Scripture, the Church of Germany is not only powerless against the propaganda of Rome, but is also no match for the propaganda of such Reformed sects, which, in addition to errors, still accept Scripture as the Word of God and also still teach the satisfactio vicaria. By relinquishment of the Scriptures as the Word of God and by the associated relinquishment of the satisfactio Christi vicaria, the modern theologians of Germany have handed over the weapons of the Christian Church to the enemies and are eo ipso just as powerless against Rome and the sects as political Germany is a plaything of the arbitrariness of its enemies after the weapons have been handed over. The theology of Germany must return to the theology which it rejects of the "strictly confessional American Lutheran Church" as a theology of repristination. By the way, we should remember in this context that this

198 > The nature and concept of theology. [NOT in English ed.]

Theology comes from Germany, namely from Germany's best time in the last century. After the freedom fights against the French world domination, a significant religious revival went through Germany. It emanated primarily from lay circles, but also extended to a part of the student youth. At the University of Leipzig, the majority of the Fathers of the Missouri Synod belonged to the cluster of faithful students thus described: "They gathered on certain days of each week for common prayer, common reading of the Holy Scriptures, for the purpose of edification and mutual exchange about the one thing that is needful." 615)Franz Delitzsch († 1890) [ADB article] also belonged to this student circle. A. Köhler says in the Herzog Realenzyklopädie that Delitzsch, after his conversion from rationalism to Christianity, pursued the study of theology together "with his like-minded friends, most of whom later became the founders of the strictly confessional trend in the Lutheran Church of North America."616) In this circle, as is further reported, 617) there was initially no address to the doctrinal difference between the various churches. But with the growth in knowledge, after some time, the question arose: of what faith are you? Are you Lutheran or Reformed or United? The result of this was a sifting, but most of them soon recognized that it was none other than the Lutheran faith, which the Holy Spirit had sealed in the diligent and salvation-seeking scriptural scholars as the true one, standing alone in adversity and temptation, even before they knew which church faith it was. Now Delitzsch, what he had recognized as Christian truth after his transition "from the school of Spinoza and Fichte into the school of Christ"618) , later forgot again for the most part. The later Delitzsch is an example of the inevitable degeneration of theology when it departs from its sole source and norm and, under the dazzling appearance of "science," becomes guilty of unscientific μετάβασις εις αλλο γένος ["change to different genus"]. However, the later Delitzsch, too, has not forgotten the period of his life which he spent together with the founders of "the strictly confessional trend in the Lutheran church of

615) Hochstetter, Geschichte der Missourisynode, p. 65.

616) RE.3 IV. 566. [Ed. RE == Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 1898 3rd edition, lines 13-15; full article by A. Köhler on Delitzsch, pgs 565 - 570 (PDF)]

617) Hochstetter, op. cit. p. 66.

618) This is how Delitzsch himself describes his conversion to Christianity in the preface to his writing "Vom Hause Gottes oder Kirche,” Dresden 1849.

199 >The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 168]

North America", declared to be the happiest time of his life. This is also reported by A. Köhler, op. cit.: "The last three years of his academic studies, 1832-34, Delitzsch himself calls the happiest of his life: 'they were the time of my first love, the springtime of my spiritual life.'" Also, it should be noted that Delitzsch continued to bear witness to Lutheran truth for quite some time after his academic studies ended. His biographer in the Realenzyklopädie reports that Delitzsch, after receiving his doctorate in philosophy in Leipzig in 1836, led the "worship exercises" of the "quiet ones in the country" until 1842, and that "the religious trend of these circles was that of a healthy pietism walking faithfully in the paths of strict Lutheran confession." This also clearly emerges from a paper that Delitzsch published in 1839 on the occasion of the tercentenary of the Reformation in the city of Leipzig under the title "Lutheranism and Lying"619) . What has always been interesting and instructive about this paper is that Delitzsch describes here in all the main points the position that a truly Christian theology has to take in relation to modern theology. But this is the position which characterized our American Lutheran Church of "strictly confessional trend" from the very beginning and which is then also described against the accusation of "repristination" in a summarizing way by Walther in Lehre und Wehre“ 1875. Delitzsch's Festschrift has been classified as "more practical and edifying"; however, it can also be described at once as dogmatic and as dogmatically instructive. Moreover, it shows a factual agreement with the Fathers of the Missouri Synod on the main points, even though the latter generally treated the same matters in a calmer tone. But Delitzsch's writing is, after all, a festschrift. The author addresses the Lutheran congregations of Leipzig: "Evangelical-Lutheran congregations of my dear beloved father city, take also my festive greeting, connected with the most intimate intercession, to the forthcoming jubilee celebration of the Reformation introduced in our midst." In the preface Delitzsch says against the accusation that he is practicing repristination theology: "I confess, without being ashamed, that in matters of faith I am three hundred years behind, because

619) The overall title is: Luthertum und Lügentum. An Open Confession at the Reformation Anniversary of the City of Leipzig. By Franz Delitzsch. Grimma 1839.

200 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 168]

I have realized, after a long insanity, that the truth is only one, and that it is eternal, unchangeable, and, because revealed by God, in need of no sifting or improvement.. Delitzsch wants to remind the Leipzig congregations of three main doctrines "which were brought to light again by the Reformation under God's assistance after long darkness had enveloped them: the doctrine of the standing of Holy Scriptures or the Word of God, the doctrine of justification, the doctrine of the means of grace." Of Holy Scriptures he says [pg 6-7], "It alone is the ground on which the Christian Church defies the gates of hell, the touchstone by which she distinguishes truth from falsehood, by which she judges, but by which she is also to be judged. To this word she must absolutely submit with reverence, with humility, with self-denial. She is set over this Word not as a judge, but as a steward, of whom God will require an account; she shall, where she does not wish to incur the curse of God, neither add to nor subtract from this Word; she shall, without all fear of man and complaisance to man, confess her faith in this Word and renounce all unrighteousness or heretical doctrine according to the express command of God." By disregarding the Holy Scriptures, Rome fell [pg 8]. "The fathers of our Lutheran Church, however, did not fight antichristianity with antichristianity; they did not, for instance, attach to or even superimpose upon Holy Scriptures another source of knowledge, such as tradition. They did not substitute the natural light of human reason, nor the supernatural light of immediate enlightenment, for the long-established darkness, but the light of Holy Scriptures, without which human reason, whether philosophizing or raving, remains forever blind and unenlightened. Admittedly, you [neologists] divide between the letter and the spirit. [You flatter yourselves that Luther is your patron. But Luther never understands by the Word of God anything different from the letter of the Holy Scriptures, never the inspiration of an inner light, the vagaries of blind reason, or the mirages of perverse feeling, but always the written Word according to its simple understanding of the Word, according to its clear sense, to the exclusion of all human mediation, falsification, and spiritualization-the Holy Scriptures, through which alone, but through whichever God the Holy Spirit works, let them be to the hearer or reader a savor of life unto life, or a savor of death unto death." On the position towards the symbolic

201 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 169]

books, Delitzsch expresses himself thus [pg 18-19]: "The symbolic books, it is said now, were good for that time, now they are ripe to be abrogated, so that the teachers, who are sworn on them, are no longer exposed to the suspicion of perjury. For the doctrines of the neologists are in direct contradiction with the symbolic books, if one does not want to interpret them in the same spiritual way as one is used to do with the Bible. No one is a member of the Lutheran Church but he who acknowledges the Scriptural nature of this Confession and, where he has the teaching profession, teaches in accordance with the obligation to the same. This confession is based on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament books, and recognizes both the Old and New Testament books of the canon as inspired by the Holy Spirit, as equally venerable and unbreakable, as consistent and conclusive, as clear, perfect, and sufficient to distinguish from the unmixed truth revealed in them the falsehood which is contrary to them." Of the old Lutheran theologians Delitzsch [pg 24] says: "Those old Lutheran teachers were not merely learned but also sanctified theologians, instructed in the school of the Holy Spirit, filled with heavenly wisdom, sweet consolation, and living knowledge of God; God's Word was implanted in their hearts, it was mixed with their faith and transformed into sap and power with them. God's Word, not human wisdom, nor understood by human wisdom, but experienced by divine grace, was the heavenly fire on which they lit their torch. Look, my people, into the mirror of your ancestors, remember the past time until now and consider what God has done to the old fathers. Ask your father, and he will tell you; your elders, and they will tell you, Deut. 32:7. Thus says the Lord: 'Stand in the ways, and look, and inquire of the former ways, which is the good way; and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls,' Jer. 6:16. I preach to you retrogression, that is, to the Word of God from which you have fallen. Your enlightenment is to me a dark, starless, eerie night; you have confused the terms in your frenzy, otherwise you could not compare an Egyptian darkness, which is the judgment of God because you rejected the light of the Reformation, to a sunny day." After expounding the doctrines of justification and the means of grace brought back to light by the Reformation, Delitzsch concludes his Jubilee writing thus:

202 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 169-170]

"I turn back to you, beloved companions of the same city and the same church, whom I met with kindness and festive greetings right at the threshold of my booklet. I have submitted myself to be your doctrine; for I know that you have teachers who are called to teach you and to shepherd you. But the Word of God also commands us, 'Let us exhort one another, and that much more, as much as ye see the day approaching.' Hebr. 10:25. I have tried to follow this divine call, for I am one of you, filled with heartfelt love for our beloved Leipzig, the city of philanthropy and gentleness, and for the dear Saxon land, the land of the spirit of the craftsman and of faithfulness. What I have expressed and tried to defend is nothing other than the faith of the old Lutheran Church, which our ancestors professed three hundred years ago on the holy feast of Pentecost with fervent prayers of thanksgiving. Search the Scriptures; you will learn and recognize that this faith is the Lutheran faith, that it is the Christian faith, founded on the immutable and imperishable Word of eternal truth. This faith has nothing to do with confused doubt, brooding gloom and sickly infirmity, as many think; oh no, it brings clear eyes, confident courage and strong vigor. The enlightened reason recognizes its irrefutable truth; the born-again heart finds in it heavenly comfort, blessed peace and rich refreshment. This faith overcomes the gates of hell and holds an eternal triumph through the gates of death. Shall we, my beloved, abandon such a proven and firm and joyful and victorious faith for a halved Christianity that limps on two sides and seeks to unite Christ and Belial, or even for a foolishly proud Enlightenment that rebukes the Word of God and idolizes reason, which is able to amuse us in life but not to comfort us in death? We would act foolishly in ourselves and irresponsibly in our descendants."

But even ten years later (1849), when he was professor of theology in Rostock, Delitzsch not only offered his greetings to his American friends of a "strictly confessional trend," but also renewed his commitment to the Lutheran Confessions and added the admonition to hold fast to this confession, because in it the "future" of the Lutheran church was decided. Delitzsch had in fact written his paper "Vom Hause Gottes oder der

203 > The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 170]

Church" dedicated "to the Evangelical Lutheran pastors Brohm, Bünger, Bürger, Fürbringer, Geier, Gönner, Gruber, Keyl, Löber, Schieferdecker, Ferdinand Walther, Wege in Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin and New York." We place a part of the dedicatory words here to illustrate somewhat further the church connection of Germany with the "strictly confessional trend" of the Missouri Synod. The words at the same time carry a strong dogmatic character and are therefore also in their place in a dogmatic. They read: "With the greeting of old, unfading love I greet you, who are of the house of the Lord, comrades of my first love for Christ, comrades of my first joy in the church of the true confession and the undiminished household of God, comrades of torturous struggles now passed by God's mercy. You, my Walther, initiated me into the deep seriousness of the divine order of grace. In my dealings with you and Bürger I first came to know and love the old ascetic writings of our church. In your congregation, dear Keyl, I held my first sermon; there I saw wonders of official pastoral care, there I spent paradisiacal days among your pastors. What deadly hatred of the world the simple sermon of the way of salvation excites, I saw in you, dear Bürger. By your word and example, you dear Wege and Brohm, Löber and Fürbringer, I became quite sure and glad of the Lutheran confession. And in a time of renewed wavering, I learned from you, dear Gruber, the right marks of the true church, by which I found it again, never to lose it again. … Each of your names, dear brethren and friends, is a matters of my life story, strewn with indelible memories. We have lived through years of Pentecostal joy, bloody wrestling, oppressive excommunication, gracious deliverance, and looking back, our mouths must be full of laughter and our tongues full of praise. For the Lord has judged us with gentleness and reigns with much mercy. His sweet love is still in our hearts, the word of his truth in our mouths, and we have not gone astray from his holy church. Receive then this small offering as a sign of life of your friend's love for the Lord, his house and you, his household. ... What a glorious future awaits our Church, if she will supply the lamp of her good confession with the oil of the Spirit and go swiftly toward the coming Lord without stagnation! All you beloved brethren on the other side of the sea,

204 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 170]

let us watch and pray that we do not lose the heritage of this future!" Under the printing of "unscientific science", as Walther used to express it, the later Delitzsch, as has already been noted, deviated from his own testimony of truth. But this does not take away the truth from his earlier testimony any more than Melanchthon's later straying from the right path invalidates the truth he originally confessed. Gradually an estrangement occurred between our American Lutheran Church and the Church of Germany. We stuck to the Scriptures as the Word of God and as the only source and norm of theology and saw in Luther, the Reformer of the Church, the right model of how to teach in the Christian Church. The longer, the more German theology abandoned the Scriptures as the Word of God and walked in the paths of Schleiermacher, the "reformer of the nineteenth century," who did not lead the church and its theology back to the rock of the Word of God, as the reformer of the sixteenth century did, but dragged the church and theology into the swamp of subjectivism by issuing the slogan of drawing Christian doctrine from the allegedly pious ego of the theologizing subject, the "experience," etc., instead of from the Scriptures. In this swamp of subjectivism moves at present almost the whole theology of Germany, as far as the public doctrines come into consideration.

A layman (a lawyer) points out in the N. Kirchl. Zeitschr. (1923, p. 116) to the unfortunate political situation in which Germany presently finds itself and which is probably most deeply felt by American Lutherans of a "strictly confessional trend". May by God's grace, as in other countries, so also in Germany, theology be led out of the swamp of Ego theology! The layman writes, among other things: "The German people have sunk as low as in the time after the Thirty Years' War. But let us remember that in that time the life of faith developed most richly in the Evangelical Church. It was then that the most beautiful of our hymns came into being, which have been an inalienable treasure of our minds since childhood. Let us hope that precisely in the storms and temptations of the new age our church will prove to be a great force of life." This would happen, and the church would also now believe and pray away political distress as it did after the Thirty Years' War, if the church relationships were as they were then. At that time the teachers

205 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. - 170-171]

of the people almost unanimously held to the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God and to the Christian doctrines drawn from the Scriptures. Out of this faith, the godly singers of the Lutheran Church sang the beautiful church songs that still refresh our hearts. Now, unfortunately, it stands differently, namely, that the public teachers of the church almost unanimously deny the infallible divine authority of Scripture and reject the Christian doctrines sung about in those glorious hymns as repristination theology. This also happens in the same number of the "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" on the part of a theologian who, with significant factual ignorance, addresses an "irretrievable case of the old dogmatic doctrine of inspiration" and, with a corresponding lack of sense of truth, accusingly points to a "Lutheran Judaism" "where one believes to have already fulfilled one's task in mechanical, outwardly accomplished appropriation of the authority of Scripture as well as of the confessional writings". We theologians are very difficult to convert by experience, if we have once thoroughly gone astray, e.g. no longer know whether we should teach from the Holy Scriptures or from our own inner being. Therefore, in Germany, also this time, as in the previous century, salvation will have to come primarily from the "lay circles," perhaps under the leadership of pastors who have hitherto received little attention. Just as here in America at the present time the laymen among the Baptists are seeking to bring about an association extending throughout the country, the purpose of which is to protect the church and the world from a generation of unbelieving pastors who are the product of the universities and seminaries where "for the divine creation evolution is used, for the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures the faith consciousness of the individual, for Christ, the Son of God, the ideal man Jesus, for faith in the vicarious satisfaction of Christ moral aspirations after the model of the ideal man Jesus, for heaven and eternal salvation earthly bliss (social gospel)." 620)

What has been said at some length about the doctrinal position of the Missouri Synod is also true of the synods in church fellowship

620) See p. 146 f. The communications from The Fundamentalist, Vol. II, No. 1.

206 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. - 171-171]

with it.621) From the Wisconsin Synod we have a great dogmatic work by Dr. Adolf Hönecke († 1908).622) This dogmatic work is proof of the fact that a dogmatist can work independently and yet be in complete agreement with others in doctrine. Hönecke also comes to the conclusion that the doctrine which the Lutheran Church confesses in its symbols is the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, and this doctrine is both presented by him from the Scriptures and victoriously asserted in astute polemics against the old, the newer and the newest false teachers. Particularly detailed are the Prolegomena, in which the author also deals in detail with the modern experience theology. Hönecke demonstrates that this experiential theology, which in principle seeks to draw and standardize Christian doctrine not from Scripture but from within the theologizing subject, is both contrary to Scripture and suffers from self-contradictions.623) We highlight some main points from Hönecke's dogmatics that characterize the author as a dogmatist. Hönecke teaches: Scripture and the Word are to be identified absolutely. "We reject all views according to which not everything in the Bible is said to be God's Word, or, what the same thing says, according to which not everything in Scripture is from God

621) These are in America the United Synod of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and others, the Slovak Synod of America and the Norwegian Synod, in Germany the Evangelical Lutheran Free Church of Saxony and others, in Australia the Evangelical Lutheran Synod in Australia.

622) The full title is: Ev.-Luth. Dogmatik by Dr. theol. Adolf Hönecke, former director and professor at the seminary of the General Lutheran Synod of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and others at Wauwatosa, Wis. Edited for printing by his sons Walther and Otto Hönecke. 1909 et seq. Northwestern Publishing House, Milwaukee, Wis. Four volumes of about 460 pages each, large octavo.

623) Frank's "System of Christian Certainty" is also discussed in detail by Hönecke with the reason: "This closer examination has its reason not in the importance of this system; for in fact it brings nothing new, neither according to principle (operating from consciousness is, as we have seen so far, something that was there long before) nor according to method and tendency (certainty, apart from Scripture, is also something old). The work alone caused a sensation and found prestige, which latter is the questionable thing. In addition, Frank is often considered a positive theologian from a genuine Lutheran point of view. One encounters in German theological writings much the expression of confidence in him as a Lutheran theologian. Thus, the interest of the Lutheran Church demands that we go into more detail about this work." (1, 120-150.)

207 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 172]

and written by divine inspiration." Because Scripture and the Word of God are reciprocal terms, Scripture is also the only source and norm of theology.624) What belongs in dogmatics is decided by Scripture and not by a systematic structure. Systematics lead astray. Just think of the doctrine of election by grace of Calvinism or the doctrine of election and calling doctrines of the synergistic Lutherans here and there.625) If one understands by dogmatic method the external grouping of doctrines, the method may be a different one. Methodus est arbitraria. But no method may be applied in such a way that anything given in Scripture is thereby methodized out.626) Hönecke, describing the synthetic and analytical method, also mentions Coccejus' federal method and the biblical-historical method, which takes the biblical history as a basis and follows it up with the dogmatic. None is to be rejected absolutely. "What is to be rejected, however, is the method of development from Christian consciousness, etc., employed by the moderns (Frank, etc.)." With this method the newer ones "want to get around the Scriptures. It opens the door to subjectivism." "Dogmatics is merely systematic, that is, well-ordered presentation of theological knowledge drawn from God's Word in faith. It is thus constantly engaged in substantiating and proving itself from God's Word. The Word of God, like its source (principium cognoscendi, norma causativa), is also its guide by which it is constantly measured." About the symbols Hönecke says: "Our [Lutheran] church has laid down its knowledge from God's Word in the symbols, and so a Lutheran dogmatics must also stand before the standard of the Symbols. But this does not set a second standard; for the Symbols themselves have their standard in Scripture, they are themselves a standardized norm (norma normata)." Hönecke also takes on the old Protestant dogmatists: "Through the whole of the newer Positive Dogmatics there passes a different trait than through the old orthodox dogmatics. The old dogmatics is theocentric, the newer positive anthropocentric."627) Hönecke stands up for the much-maligned Calov with these words: "The most important theologian among those who apply the method of Calixt is indisputably Abraham Calov. Physically fit

624) I, 329 ff. 625) I, 259 f.<w:t>626) I, 325 ff.<w:t xml:space="preserve">627) I, 315.

208 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 172]

even in old age and not paralyzed by the abundant domestic cross, he remained one of the most faithful, zealous and vigorous advocates of strict Lutheranism until the end of his life. His honest polemical zeal is often reproached to him. According to the judgment of the newer ones, he is a man who constantly stands like a watchdog in front of his Lord's house and barks, bitingly at all who even want to break off something at the fence. Such a man, of course, does not please such theologians who are willing to give away almost everything, even the core doctrines. In Calov's time, just as today, people began to break off so quietly and silently at the fence of the pure doctrine under correct sounding phrase; there he could not keep silent as a faithful guardian and therefore has to put up with the fact that today he is much reviled. He is often reproached for his sixth marriage at an advanced age, even with honorable words (RE. 1 II, 607), while, on the other hand, Schleiermacher's truly immoral relationship over many years, to which the moderns all pay homage, is not touched upon at all, or at least extremely gently (RE.1 XIII, 743). Sine ira et studio, this is certainly not done."

As for Hönecke's influence on the Wisconsin Synod, he is described by Prof. J. Schaller († 1920) as the man through whom the Wisconsin Synod arrived at a clear doctrinal position. Schaller says: "It was a question at that time (when the Wisconsin Synod still belonged to the General Council) of giving the Wisconsin Synod an unmistakable doctrinal position and clarifying its relationship to other American church bodies as well as to the German Church. It belonged at that time to the General Council, which, although it stood much more firmly in its commitment to Lutheran doctrine than the General Synod, nevertheless displeased the decided Lutherans who belonged to the Wisconsin Synod because of unionist practice. On the other hand, the Missouri Synod stood with its unequivocal commitment to the symbolic books of the Lutheran Church and its firm testimony against those who were not serious about the Lutheran confession in practice. The young pastor Hönecke took an active and soon decisive part in the proceedings on the confession question. For he had thrown himself into the study of the old Lutheran dogmatists and quickly gained not only a thorough acquaintance with their doctrinal position, but also the heartfelt conviction that any unionist fraternization was not only denial of the Lutheran

209 >The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 173]

Confessions, but of the gospel itself. His influence contributed in an outstanding way to the Wisconsin Synod severing its connection with the General Council, and also made itself felt powerfully when, in 1868, proceedings were held with the Missouri Synod, which concluded with the mutual recognition of the two bodies. Therefore he is also among those who deserve to be remembered as founders of the Synodical Conference which came into being in 1872." 628) We find no doctrinal difference between Walther and Hönecke, in which we rightly see once again a testimony to the unifying power of the Word of God. Like the fathers of the Missouri Synod among themselves, Walther and Hönecke were strongly marked and different characters. They also came from different church relationships. Hönecke studied theology in Halle under Hupfeldt, Julius Müller, and Tholuck, that is, at a time when the reign of rationalism had already been broken in Halle. In his Dogmatik629) Hönecke says of Tholuck: "Tholuck pointed many of his students on the path of life, but became grudging with them when they took more strictly confessional paths like the author of this Dogmatik, who nevertheless revered him at all times as a man to whom he had much to thank." Hönecke came to the United States in 1863, twenty-four years after the immigration of the Saxons, as an emissary of the Berlin Missionary Society, to be active in the church care of the immigrant Germans here. He became a member of the Wisconsin Synod and soon its theological leader, as already reported in Prof. Schaller's words above. It is probably appropriate to point out here that Hönecke in his Dogmatik 630) also describes Walther as a theologian. In this description of Walther, Hönecke at the same time describes himself as a theologian, as can be seen from the attached judgments. He says about Walther: "Karl F. W. Walther was a theologian of Scripture. What the Ritschlian Kattenbusch (Von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl, p. 3) puts down as Walther's weakness, that he again issued the slogan: Only loci!, since it is the signature of the revelation that we learn only incoherent matters from God's mysteries, that must be credited to Walther as praise.

628) In the preface to Hönecke's Dogmatik IX f.

629) I, 306.<w:t xml:space="preserve">630) I, 320 ff. [pp 320-323; English ed. pp. 347-349]

210 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. - 173-174]

He thus places himself in the ranks of the genuine Lutheran theologians, while the so-called confessional theologians over there, since they strive for real systems, stand under the influence of Schleiermacher, as Kattenbusch also declares of them. To make systems, to rhyme apparently contradictory doctrines, is not the task of the theologian, according to Walther. On the contrary, he considers all system-making to be harmful and not beneficial in theology; it does not deepen the doctrines, but only dissolves them. He agrees with the words of Luther: "If rhyming is to apply, we will not keep any article in the faith. Just as little as systematizing and rhyming doctrines, he considers it the task of the theologian, which the moderns also want so much, to reconcile Scripture and science, faith and knowledge. In doing so, according to him, Scripture and faith must suffer. — With all respect for real science (L. u. W. 21, Foreword), scientific theology in the sense of the moderns is something foreign to him. Science should only serve as a handmaiden in theology; if it wants to be more, it must leave. The theology of Scripture is already corrupted when one thinks that one wants to help the Word of Scripture with scientific proofs. — The only principle of knowledge in theology is Scripture. What is not from Scripture does not belong in theology. 'No less do we agree,' he writes, 'therefore also with Johann Gerhard: The only principle of theology is the Word of God; therefore what is not revealed in the Word of God is not theological.' He therefore absolutely rejected all theologizing on the basis of enlightened reason (L. u. W. 21, 225 ff.). 'All such apologetics,' he says (L. u. W. 34, 326) [Ed.- ref. L. u. W. 21, pg 41; Editorials from Lehre und Wehre, p. 135], 'we hate with all our heart, for it presupposes that there is something more certain than God's Word, from which more certain the mysterious content of revelation can be derived.' — While the newer confessional theologians over there define theology as the 'ecclesiastical science of Christianity' (so Luthardt, comp., p. 2) and speak of its 'relationship to philosophy' (Öttingen, Dogm. I, 411), Walther calls it, what is considered by Öttingen as a primitive point of view (loc. cit., p. 397), with Chemnitz and the other ancients as habitus practicus. He says: 'What is the purpose of the ministry is also the purpose of theology. But this is true faith, the knowledge of truth for godliness, and finally eternal life' (L. u. W. 14, 73). — According to Walther, one becomes a theologian only through the Holy Spirit from the Word of God. A true

211 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 174]

theologian is only one who is born again through the spirit by means of the word. In his edition of Baier, he cites Luther's words (p. 69): 'No one will make you a doctor of the Holy Scriptures, but the Holy Spirit from heaven alone, as Christ says John 6:45'. From the word the theologian, and what he drives, is again the word. — The Scriptures were Walther's Word of God and nothing else. He did not shake the old church doctrine of inspiration. Rohnert praises him for the fact that in the last decades he probably stood up most decisively for the old dogmatic verbal inspiration (Dogmatik, p. 105). Walther held fast to the inspiration of Scripture, because he saw that if one yielded even in the least here, one would give up that Scripture alone was the source and norm of theology. — Walther does not recognize 'open questions', like the Iowa Synod. The church does not require symbolic processing to make a doctrine a church doctrine. The Confessions do not make new church doctrines, but only present them. Scripture is the decisive thing. Therefore, the Bible doctrine is also church doctrine, even if it is not yet treated in the symbols (L. u. W. 14, 133 ff.). However, Walther held the Confessions in high esteem. Everywhere he refers to them in his writings and to the statements of the faithful Lutheran doctrines. But his theology is not a repristination theology in the bad sense, as the newer theologians over there cry out; for with him it is not the old dogmatists or the symbols that are decisive, but the Scriptures. — As a theologian of Scripture he has no special doctrines which he has preferred to drive, but the course of time brought it about that he had to drive some doctrines especially and worked them through vigorously: the doctrine of church and ministry as against the Buffalo Synod, the doctrine of election and calling as against the Ohio and Iowa Synods, the doctrine of justification and reconciliation as against Erlangen theology and the sectarianism of the country."

Thus Hönecke about Walther. The actual struggle over the doctrines of church and ministry, which was being waged almost simultaneously in Germany as well, had already ended when Hönecke came to the United States. But even in these doctrines he bears witness to Christian truth in the face of the error that has risen up on the left and on the right, as is evident from his Dogmatics. He teaches: The631)

631) IV, 146 ff.

212 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 175 & 177]

Church in the true sense of the word is only the faithful Christians, and only they are the original owners of all spiritual goods and rights. Therefore, it is they who "hand over" the Ministry to the persons capable of it by calling. With regard to the question whether the public ministry is of divine or human order, he decisively teaches the divine order.632) On the one hand, he opposes Grabau, Loehe, Kliefoth, Münchmeyer, and others who, romanticizing, make of the public ministry a means of grace apart from Word and Sacrament; on the other hand, he opposes Hase, Köstlin, Höfling, Luthardt, and others who deny the divine order of the public ministry in the sense that it has a divine command, and maintain that the ministry in concreto emerges from the Christian congregation with inner necessity without an explicit divine command.

As far as the doctrines of Conversion and Election of Grace are concerned, the charge has been leveled against Hönecke, respectively against the Wisconsin Synod and other synods within the Synodical Conference, not only in American but also in European publications and writings, that they "willingly swallowed the bitter Missourian Calvinist pill at the time."633) Expressed without illustration, the charge is that Hönecke and the synods of which he was the most influential theologian, without their own conviction, indeed against their own conviction, sided with the Missouri Synod in the controversy over the Lutheran doctrine of conversion and Election of Grace. The allegedly swallowed "bitter Missourian-Calvinist pill" has this meaning: At the beginning of the seventies of the last century, from the Iowa Synod and about eight years later also from the Ohio Synod, the charge was brought against the Missouri Synod that it had fallen into a "fundamental error", namely into "Calvinism". What had been going on? Within the Missouri Synod had happened what has happened at all times when Christian doctrine has been seriously acted upon and considered in the Christian Church. In the doctrinal proceedings at synods and conferences, the so-called crux theologorum had occasionally come up, namely, the fact that the Formula of Concord so

632) IV, 175 ff.

633) Thus the Leipziger Allgemeine Ev.-Luth. Kirchenzeitung 1893, No. 2.

213 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 175]

formulated: "One is made obdurate, perverse, given to a perverse mind; another, as well in the same guilt, is again converted." This question was dealt with in the apostolic church,634) then towards Pelagianism and Semipelagianism in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries,635) especially also at the time of the Reformation, e.g. in the sharply pointed question why Saul is rejected, David accepted, Peter converted, Judas lost.636) What was (and still is) taught within the Missouri Synod can be summarized in three sentences: 1. We know from Scripture exactly the reason for conversion: it is God's work of grace alone. (2) We also know from Scripture exactly the reason for non-conversion: it is man's reluctance to accept the working of the Holy Spirit (sola hominis culpa). (3) Since the grace of God is both universal and sincere, and all men are in the same total ruin, it remains a mystery to our human understanding in this life why some are converted, and others are not. We expect the solution of this mystery in eternal life. Any attempt to solve it in this life brings us into contradiction with Scripture. The mystery would be easily solved if we were allowed, with Erasmus and the later Melanchthon, to assume something in man (aliquid in homine) as the reason or explanatory ground for a man's conversion (facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, different behavior, refrain from willful resistance, etc.), or if it were permitted to be taught in the Christian Church that conversion depends not only on God's grace but also on the behavior of man. But this solution enters into contradiction with all the statements of Scripture, which so clearly ascribe the origin of faith to the work of God's grace and omnipotence, and not only deny to man any inclination to the Gospel, but also ascribe to himself enmity against it. The

634) Rom. 11:33-36. In general, the whole section ch. 9-11 belongs here.

635) Scriptural position on the crux theologorum in the Canons of Arausio (Orange) 529. In Mansi VIII, 712 ff. I have had the 25 sentences reprinted in “The Basic Difference in the Doctrine of Conversion and Election of Grace,” 1903, pp. 34 ff. Cf. also Zur Einigung 2, 1913, p. 3 f. [English: Conversion and Election, p. 5, text here.]

636) The contrast between Luther and the later Melanchthon II, 583,

214 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 176]

mystery would also be completely solved if, with Calvin, we were allowed to substitute gratia particularis for gratia univsrsalis as the reason for non-conversion. But this solution is also forbidden, because it brings us into contradiction with all the statements of Scripture which so clearly and powerfully teach the gratia universalis, seria et efficax and expressly extend the effect of the Holy Spirit aimed at conversion also to those men who are not converted and saved. Therefore, in view of the same grace of God and in view of the same total ruin of men, a rational ("cognitive") answer to the question: Cur alii, alii non? is to be dispensed with in this life. In other words: It is the only right God-willed theology to acknowledge at this point a mystery that cannot be solved in this life. So Luther and Chemnitz. So also very pronounced the Formula of Concord, which after stating the fact: "One is hardened, blinded, given into a perverse mind, another, so well in the same guilt, is again converted" [Trigl. 1081, 57 🔗] expressly adds that here is a "question" whose answer is impossible in this life, because the scriptural revelation does not go beyond Hos. 13:9 ("O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help."), and states very definitely that, according to Scripture, when we compare the saved with the lost, we would have to teach the same guilt and the same evil conduct in the former as in the latter. On the other hand, it has been strangely asserted from the Lutheran synods mentioned above: "It is not true that the Lutheran Church leaves unanswered the question why death and reluctance are taken away from one man and not from another. It is not true that the Lutherans beat this question down." "That of two men who hear the gospel, in one reluctance and death are taken away, and in the other not — this has its reason in the will of man, it has its reason in the fact that one persistently, obstinately and willfully resists the grace of God, while the other lets his natural reluctance be overcome by the Holy Spirit. It has its reason in the free self-decision of man." God "makes it depend on man's decision whom he will have mercy on and whom he will harden." "We shall know the reason of it, that in one man reluctance and death are taken away,

215 >The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 177]

... in the different behavior of men toward the offered grace."637) "So the different operation of converting and saving grace is probably explained by the different conduct of men toward it." 638) This doctrine, according to which the "different conduct" of men is used as a ground of explanation for the fact why, of two men hearing the Gospel, one believes, while the other does not, and according to which conversion and salvation stand in man's own hands, is the doctrine of the later Melanchthon, so emphatically rejected in the Formula of Concord. It is also the doctrine of modern Lutherans like Dieckhoff and Luthardt, who think they must delete sola gratia in order to prove the church against Calvinism.639) And because the Missouri Synod held fast to sola gratia as well as to general grace, the legend of the Missouri "Calvinism" has been spread throughout the world, and that is why the "Allgemeine Ev.-Luth. Kirchenzeitung" also spoke of the "bitter Missouri Calvinist pill" which supposedly the synods of Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. had swallowed. With what clear knowledge of the doctrines of Holy Scriptures, of Luther, and of the Lutheran Confessions these Synods, we must say, so carelessly accused, treated all pertinent points of doctrine, is evident from their report on the Synod convention in 1882.640) In order to prevent anyone from saying yes to the result of the proceedings against his conviction, it was decided after the detailed proceedings "to meet again in the afternoon in fellowship and to induce each member of the two synods to declare his agreement with the doctrine presented or, if he could not profess the same, to make this known as well.641) The position of the two synods on the doctrine of Scripture and the Lutheran Confession is evident from the following decisive sentences:642) "Man cannot contribute in the least to his conversion either by his actions or by his conduct, and that some are converted while

637) Monatshefte 1872, pp. 80, 87, 103.

638) Zeitblätter 1911, p. 526.<w:t>639) II, note 1296; II, note 1317.

640) Proceedings of the 32nd Assembly of the Wisconsin Synod in fellowship with the Minnesota Synod at La Crosse, Wis. from June 8 to 14, 1882.

641) Report, p. 34 f.<w:t>642) op. cit. p. 23. 39. 56. 41.

216 > The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 177-178]

others remain in their ruin can no more be declared by setting up a difference among men than by denying the general will of God for grace.” “It remains a mystery why some are converted while others remain unconverted. Only this must be firmly stated, that just as the remaining of some in an unconverted state is founded in God's purpose, so also the conversion of others is not founded in a difference of reluctance." "When the twofold question is asked: Whence comes it that some are converted and others not? one cannot answer: 'It comes from God' or: 'It comes from men,' but that a man is converted comes from the mighty effect of God's grace in the gospel, which has been wrought on him. But that the other is not converted, that comes from the mighty power and effect of his evil heart, which has resisted God's grace." "The Formula of Concord knows nothing of a solution of the mystery here involved by a distinction between natural and willful reluctance, but says, where it addresses the mysteries about which we are not to brood: 'One is blinded, given to a perverse mind, another, as well in like guilt, is again converted.'" In his dogmatics643) Hönecke counts the insertion of "different human behavior" into the ordo salutis among human "system-building" that seeks to be clever beyond Scripture in the interest of a system of reason. In fact, the "different behavior" has been put on the theological market in order to declare rationally the fact: "One is hardened, blinded, given to a perverse sense, another, so well in the same guilt, is again converted". Above this, the scriptural statements, which are to the same utter ruin of all men, are then deleted. "Where one wanted to proceed strictly systematically [in the sense of "system-building"], the result has been the most serious aberration from Scripture. Always such a system, of whatever kind it may be, requires an answer to the question why, out of the many called, few are saved. This is where the system leads astray. Just think of the doctrine of election by grace of Calvinism [denial of universalis gratia] or of the doctrine of election and vocation of the synergistic Lutherans over here and over there" (denial of sola gratia).

643) I, 260.

217 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 178]

In the foregoing, two theological representatives of the "strictly confessional trend" of the American Lutheran Church have been described. That Walther's sphere of influence was the larger is due to several reasons, but does not change the fact that both men, in spite of differences of character and conduct of life, were bound by the bond of complete unity in Christian doctrine and remained bound until their deaths. Both were "Repristination Theologians" in the right, godly sense of the word, and a concrete illustration of such words of Luther as this: "The word and the doctrine shall make Christian unity or fellowship; where the one is equal and united, the other will well follow"; further: "Let one church voluntarily follow the other in outward things, or let each one keep its customs; if only the unity of the Spirit in faith and in word is preserved, then the diversity and variety in earthly and visible things does no harm"; finally: "I do not want peace and unity if one loses the Word of God, for eternal life and everything would already be lost. It is not a matter of giving way or conceding something for the sake of you or some man, but all things must give way to the word, whether it be enemy or friend. For it is not given for the sake of outward or worldly unity and peace, but for the sake of eternal life." 644) It is a pity that the American Lutheran Church of "strict confessional trend" and the Church in Germany have come apart! To recall the original unity of spirit between Walther and Franz Delitzsch: through Walther the Christian and theological way has come to full development, which once bound the friends of youth in Leipzig and which Delitzsch — we cannot help the impression — mourned in a certain sense until the end of his life.645)

644) St. L. IX, 831; XVIII, 1985; IX, 831.

645) This also appears to us from the letter of condolence that Delitzsch addressed to Walther's family on the occasion of his death. It is dated "Leipzig, Pfingstmontag 1887" [Ed. -note from English edition - reprinted in Lehre und Wehre, 1887, 289 f.] and contains, among other things. The following words about Walther: "There is hardly a living person who, like me, lived through the years of first love for the Savior he had found and then also through the travails under which the emigration was accomplished — God steeled him in this fire of challenge, so that he became an iron pillar and a wall of brass (Jer. 1:18) for our Lutheran church — a miracle in my eyes, in which my weak faith was often strengthened. In some things we, the two old friends, could not understand each other lately.

218 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 179]

The question has been and is being asked about the influence that "the strictly confessional trend" of the American Lutheran Church has exerted externally, first on the older American Lutheran Church, which had almost only the name of Lutheranism left, then on Germany and other countries. This has also been bound up with the question of whether a "Repristination Theology" which holds to Scripture as God's infallible Word (verbal inspiration) and consequently also to the confession of the Lutheran Church in all matters, will be able to hold its own in this country and elsewhere. If we first look at the external influence, it is neither too low nor too high. Admittedly, a significant influence has been exerted on the older American Lutheran Church, although the fathers of the Missouri Synod were active almost exclusively through the medium of the German language. The most eminent theologian of the English Lutheran Church in America, Charles Porterfield Krauth († 1883), has repeatedly and in various turns expressed himself to the effect that the "Missourians" are to be regarded as benefactors of the American Lutheran Church. Krauth himself, under this influence, after prolonged inner struggles and after severe battles against his church environment, gained such a position on the Lutheran Church and its confession that he felt urged in his conscience to explicitly recant his earlier lax, unionist position. He wrote in 1865, among other things: 646) "Our church can never have a true internal

but my love and veneration did not suffer any loss, and in the foundation we remained one, because in the bloody merit of Lord Jesus I also hide myself alive and dying. ... I hope to see my dear friend again, where there is no sea to separate us. … The whole Lutheran Church has cause to mourn [on the occasion of Walther's death]." (This letter is printed in extenso in “L. u. W.” 1887, p. 289 f.) In the same spirit Delitzsch also wrote to the author of this Dogmatics in 1887. The fact that the two old friends could not come to an understanding "in some things" lately was due to the fact that Delitzsch changed his former point of view under the printing of "science". As a "scientific theologian" he interposed "science" as the determining principle between himself and the Holy Scriptures. He gave away the inspiration of the Scriptures. That Delitzsch as a Christian held fast to the satisfactio vicaria, as we also hold to love, is a "happy inconsistency." That the denial of inspiration consequently also leads to the denial of satisfactio vicaria, Delitzsch already saw realized in his time (Hofmann, Frank) and is since then before our eyes as an almost general fact.

646) Quoted in L. u. W. 11, 27 [sic - pg 278] from the Lutheran and Missionary, July 13, 1865.

219 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 179-180]

harmony except in the confession of these articles (the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession), and of all of them altogether, without reservation or ambiguity. This is our deep conviction, and we hereby solemnly retract before God and His Church, as we have already done earnestly and repeatedly in an indirect manner, all that we have written or said in conflict with this our present conviction. To do this we are not ashamed. We thank God who has guided us to see the truth." We have from Krauth a very significant and in some respects classic dogmatic work under the title Conservative Reformation and Its Theology (1871). Here again Krauth repeats in the preface (p. XIII), "The positions taken in this book are largely counter, in some respects, to the prevailing theology of our time and our land. No man can be more fixed in his prejudice against the views defended here than the author himself once was; no man can be more decided in his opinion that these views are false than the author is now decided in his faith that they are the truth. They have been formed in the face of all the influences of education and of bitter hatred or of contemptuous disregard on the part of nearly all who were most intimately associated with him in the period of struggle." In a masterly manner, Krauth also defended, for example, the Lutheran doctrines of Christ's person and of Holy Communion against Shedd's attacks and presented them as Scriptural.647) But Krauth's theological position did not develop and prevail in the face of the tenacious opposition it found in his own circles. The most important English Lutheran dogmatist after Krauth is Henry E. Jacobs. From him we possess A Summary of Christian Faith (1905). This dogmatic work is written in a very clever catechetical form. Also, in copious quotations from Luther, the Confessional Writings, and the Dogmatists, the effort to arrive at the scriptural Lutheran standpoint clearly appears. But by inserting the "different human behavior" into the order of salvation to answer the question: Cur non omnes? Jacobs turns decisively into the synergistic fairway. He writes:648) "The differences in results in the call do not depend upon differences in God's will or upon the call

647) Cf. the quotations from Krauth, which we communicated in the doctrines of Christ's person and of the Lord's Supper, II, 306; III, 364. 376. 401 s.

648) A Summary of Christian Faith, p. 216 f.

220 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 180-181]

having an irresistible efficacy attached to it in one case and having no efficacy attached to it in the other. The efficacy of the Word and call is constant; [so far correct, but now follows] the difference in results is determined by a difference in man's attitude toward the call." This adopts the doctrine of the later Melanchthon, which, as we have seen, is so decidedly rejected by Luther, by Chemnitz, and by the Formula of Concord, because it denies the equal guilt and the equal evil conduct of those who are saved when compared with those who are lost, abrogates the sola gratia, and places the salvation of man instead of the sola gratia in man's hand, namely, in man's conduct or self-decision. Even when Dr. Schmauk, the president of the General Council, wanted to eliminate this synergism, e.g. by words like these: "Man's will is able to decide for salvation through new powers bestowed by God. This is the subtle synergism which has infected nearly the whole of Evangelical Protestantism, and which is or has been taught in institutions bearing the name of our Church."649) he was rebuked and rebuked from within his own church fellowship.650) But where the conversion and salvation of man is placed, instead of solely on God's grace, decisively on man's conduct, self-decision, self-settlement, etc., then the essence of the Christian religion, as distinguished from the religions invented by men, is in principle abandoned, and where this doctrine really asserts itself, then the struggle against Rome, against the works doctrine of the sects, also against the lodges, has lost its inner justification and power. Luther knew well what he was saying when he called out to Erasmus: Iugulum meum petisti! Jacobs has also given up the inspiration of the Scriptures (in the sense of the Scriptures). On the one hand he calls the Scriptures an "inerrant record" of divine revelation, but on the other hand he talks about "discrepancies" of the holy writers. He says, for example:651) "But there is a true sense in which we may say not only that 'the Bible is,' but 'that the Bible contains, the Word of God.' This occurs when each part, even the most insignificant and seemingly trifling, even the discrepancies between various human inspired writers, and all that pertains to the limitations of their nature and environment and

649) The Confessional Principle, 1911, p. 752.

650) The quotations in F. Bente, American Lutheranism, II, 217 f.

651) A Summary of the Christian Faith, p. 284.

221 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 181]

age and language, are regarded as bearing on the one great end and one great theme of revelation and its clear and inerrant record." Questions that have nothing to do with the inspiration of Scripture, such as the historical question of whether the Hebrew vowel points were originally written (Gerhard) or not written (Luther), are mixed into the doctrine of inspiration. 652) Jacobs writes: "But are not some of the most conservative defenders of traditional theories of inspiration also open to criticism? Yes, when they ignore or endeavor to conceal the human element in Scripture (see above, 8 a) or, what is the same, raise the human factor to an equality with the divine, as when it is claimed that the Hebrew vowel points are inspired." Jacobs brings out particularly sharply his rejection of the inspiration of Scripture in his introduction to D. J. A. W. Haas' Biblical Criticism (1903). Whereas Christ says of all Scripture and of every word of Scripture, "Scripture cannot be broken," and the apostle Paul says indiscriminately of all Scripture, "All Scripture inspired of God," even Peter assures us that the words of the Old Testament prophets and of the New Testament apostles are equally the words of the Holy Spirit, Jacobs distinguishes degrees of inspiration between the separate parts of the Old Testament, between the Old and New Testaments, and between the separate parts of the New Testament. "A text from Genesis and one from John, one from the Psalms and one from Romans, cannot stand upon the same footing." [see original here] “There are few theorists [!] who would assign the same degree of inspiration to the statistics and rolls in Ezra or Chronicles as to those parts of the New Testament for whose reading the dying ask when all other earthly words have lost their interest. Even the distinction between the Petrine and the Pauline theology, which the Tuebingen school so greatly exaggerated, contains within it an element of truth, when the difference is found to be one of degree, but not one of kind." 653) Jacobs has appropriated pretty much all the ways in which modern theology combats the inspiration of Scripture. He appeals, for example, to the fact that the Augsburg Confession contains no exposition of the doctrine of inspiration. The Formula of Concord also does not formulate

652) op. cit., p. 281

653) Quotation from F. Bente, American Lutheranism, II, 220 f. [see original here]

222 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 181-182]

a definition, neither of revelation nor of inspiration. In order to discredit verbal inspiration, a mechanical conception of inspiration is ascribed to its proponents, contrary to historical truth: "If the verbal theory of inspiration mean that every word and letter are inspired, so that the writer was purely passive and performed a merely mechanical office, as 'the pen of the Holy Ghost,' this, we hold, is an assumption for which we have no warrant." [see original quote here]

Also, a great difference appears when we compare Dr. Krauth's attitude and position toward the "strictly confessional direction" of the American Lutheran Church with the attitude and position which the leaders now living manifest against this "direction." Krauth said, among other things: "I have been saddened beyond expression by the bitterness displayed toward the Missourians. So far as they have helped us to see the great principles involved in this disputation [on the four points: Altar and pulpit fellowship with non-Lutherans, chiliasm and lodges], they have been our benefactors, and although I know they have misunderstood some of us, that was perhaps inevitable. They are men of God, and their work has been of inestimable value." 654) Further, in his address to the Pittsburgh Synod in 1866, Krauth declared that any external church union without unity in doctrine was displeasing to God and harmful to the church. "There can be, there is, no true unity but in the faith. … The one token of this unity, that by which this internal thing is made visible, is the one expression of faith, one 'form of sound words.' used in simple earnestness, and meaning the same to all who employ it. … You may agree to differ; but when men become earnest, difference in faith will lead first to fervent pleadings for the truth, and, if these he hopelessly unheeded, will lead to separation. All kinds of beliefs and unbeliefs may exist under the plea of toleration." 655a) Contradicting this warning of its former president, the General Council has bound itself with the General Synod and the United Synod of the South to form the "United Lutheran Church of America," or "merger synods," without even attempting to resolve the doctrinal differences that exist. The General Council

654) Quoted in F. Bente, op. cit., II, 185, from Späth's biography of Krauth II, 236.

655 a) F. Bente, op. cit. II, 184.

223 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 182]

has thus returned to the unionist position of the General Synod, for the sake of which it once separated from the General Synod. It has also been declared from within the Ohio Synod that with the formation of the United Lutheran Church of America Dr. Krauth's position, so earnestly striving for a Lutheran Church some in doctrine within the older Lutheran Church of America, is abandoned. We cannot escape the perception that in a large part of the American Lutheran Church neither Walther's nor Krauth's influence has been able to prevail.655b)

655 b) [249] We have, besides Jacobs' A Summary of the Christian Faith, several major and minor dogmatic works in English. We mention: Milton Valentine, Christian Theology, 1905-1907, 2 vols; Revere F. Weidner, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology 2, 1895; Andrew Voigt, 1916. All are more or less influenced by modern "scientific" theology, but in such a way that Weidner and Voigt object to the grossest excesses. False witness spoken against the old dogmatists is well taken by modern theologians who have a name, bona fide. Voigt, for example, says in the Introduction, XVIII: "Confessionalism does not mean that it is the office of dogmatics simply to reproduce and defend the accepted doctrines of the Church. This was the conception in the seventeenth century." Anyone familiar with the theologians of the seventeenth century knows that they take Christian doctrine directly from Scripture and give reasons for it, which is, after all, what modern theologians charge them with doing wrong ("intellectualism," etc.). Milton Valentine's Dogmatics can serve as a proof of how successfully the General Synod resisted not only the influence of the Missouri Synod, but also the efforts of Dr. Krauth. Valentine represents pretty much all the aberrations of modern theology in binding with Arminian Reformed zealotry. He rejects the inspiration of Scripture and the vicarious penal suffering of Christ. He weakens the doctrine of original sin, rejects mere passive, and adopts human will as the third cause of conversion (free self-decision). Infants cannot believe and are saved without their own faith. Heathens are saved "if they lived according to the light afforded them" (II, 405 ff.). — We have a compendium of dogmatics written in English with consistently correct biblical content in D. A. L. Gräbner's († 1904) Outlines of Doctrinal Theology (1898). These Outlines are, as the author says in the preface, "a brief thetical compendium of the outlines of Christian doctrine, consisting of concise definitions and an array of texts from which the various points of doctrine are derived as from their theological source, the written Word of God." That quotations from the symbolic books are not included "must not be construed into a disparagement of the Lutheran standards or of any point of doctrine contained therein. With an emphatic refusal to apologize for having nowhere, from the first point in Bibliology to the last in Eschatology, progressed beyond the theology of our Orthodox fathers, and with the fervent prayer that God would

224 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 183]

As for the influence of the "strictly confessional trend" of the American Lutheran Church on the Lutheran Church in other countries, General Superintendent [Hans Heinrich Philipp Justus] Ruperti wrote on the occasion of Walther's death: 656) "With Walther one of the greats in the Church of Christ has gone home, a man who was not only an epoch-making personality in the church history of America and the outstanding leader and gatherer of Lutherans there, but whose effectiveness in the Lutheran Church of all parts of the world was felt to be a powerfully stimulating one. The success of his effectiveness is almost unparalleled in the recent history of our church." Here, too, as far as the influence on the German Church is concerned, a qualifying remark is in order. The fathers of the Missouri Synod were truly in no haste to break off intercourse with the Church of Germany. Just as they ceaselessly endeavored to communicate with the various Lutheran synods in this country by offering preliminary discussions, 657) so they repeatedly sought communication with the church circles of Germany and other countries.658) Admittedly, little by little, especially with the Church of Germany, alienation set in, as Delitzsch points out in the above-mentioned letter. We, for our part, have maintained the binding insofar as we have taken careful note of the church events in Germany, especially also of the literary phenomena. Perhaps the 68 volumes of “Lehre und Wehre“ and the 78 volumes of "Lutheraner" offer the richest contemporary history of the church, covering the whole world, that exists at present. On the other hand, the German theological world, on the one hand, has not yet fully understood our — after all not insignificant — church literature

graciously keep him and his brethren in the faith from any such progress, this humble contribution toward the theological literature of our Church in America is dedicated to the service of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and commended to His divine blessing."

656) [250] Allgem. Ev.-Luth. Kirchenzeitung of July 22, 1887 [vol. 20; see Christian Cyclopedia entry].

657) At present, doctrinal discussions are again being held between representatives of the Synodical Conference and representatives of the Synods of Iowa and Ohio. The proceedings are not hopeless, although complete agreement on doctrines has not yet been reached.

658) It should also be noted that Lutheran church fellowships, which agree with the Synodical Conference in doctrine and practice, exist in other countries: in Germany the Evangelical Lutheran Free Church of Saxony and elsewhere (with congregations in Denmark), in Australia and New Zealand the Evangelical Lutheran Synod in Australia, in Alsace the Evangelical Lutheran Free Church in Alsace.

225 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 183-184]

and, on the other hand, quite carefully observed and further spread the evil things which are communicated to the world from the opposing camp about our "strictly confessional trend", e.g. about our alleged Calvinism, about our idolatry of the dogmatists and our desecration of the dogmatists, about our unity and about our mutual hostilities, about democratic bondage of the pastors on the part of the congregations etc.659) Unfortunately, we have been met with the same bitterness on the part of the theologians of Germany that we have been met with in this country — to the great regret of Dr. Krauth — on the part of the representatives of liberal "American Lutheranism." And we can understand that. We are separated theologically by a gulf so wide and deep that it cannot be bridged. We hold the Holy Scriptures to be God's infallible Word, and therefore the only source and standard of theology, so that we reject any thought which, to use Luther's phrase, does not have its "arrival" from the Scriptures, may the thought relate to the content or context of Christian doctrine. Modern theologians, on the other hand, regard the "identification" of Scripture and "the Word of God" as a dismissed point of view which has its representatives only in "lay circles" and among theological "latecomers." They therefore see their calling in presenting the product of their "pious self-awareness" to the church and the world and then correcting the fallible Scriptures. With "lay circles" and theological laggards we could come to an understanding. With theological supermen who have taken their stand above Scripture, communication is impossible because the fellowship Christian basis is lacking. However, God's grace can bring about change on this point, too, amidst the tremendous upheavals that are currently sweeping through the entire world.

Will the "strictly confessional trend" of the Lutheran Church, as represented here in the United States by the Synodical Conference, be able to hold its own here and in other countries? The question of the viability of the church of the Reformation in its unchanged and unchanging doctrinal form has recently been considered many times in Germany and other countries. What is to be said here can be roughly summarized in the following

659) [252] Kurtz, Kirchengeschichte für Studierende, 1890, II, 2, p. 262. RE.2 IX, 85 f. Partial correction RE.2 XVIII, 687 ff.

226 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 184]

points: 1. It does not stand in our discretion whether we want to remain with the doctrine of the Lutheran Church as it is testified in its confession or not. This doctrine coincides in all matters with the doctrine of Christ, which we have in the word of His apostles and prophets, 660) and no other doctrine is permitted in the Christian Church until the Last Day. Inasmuch as anyone does not abide by the sound words of Christ, he is darkened and ignorant, because no man knows anything of God and divine things beyond God's Word.661) Orthodoxy belongs to the God-ordained form of the Christian Church on earth. Admittedly, anyone who has not recognized the Lutheran doctrine as witnessed in the Confession of the Church as being in accordance with Scripture cannot advocate this doctrine. But this lack of recognition does not change the fact that the Lutheran Church of the Reformation is the church of pure doctrine, that is, doctrine according to the Scriptures, as is abundantly evident from the Scriptural evidence given in the Confession itself. The Lutheran church in its original, unchanging doctrinal form should therefore not appear timidly in the world, as if it had to ask for an apology for still existing, but by God's grace should stand before the church and the world with the confidence that comes from the knowledge of divine truth based on abiding by the word of the apostles and prophets. 2 The history of the Church shows that by God's grace and power a Church that abides in the unchanging Word of God's prophets and apostles is viable. The church at Jerusalem remained constant in the doctrines of the apostles, and the Lord added to the congregation daily those who were saved.662) The church of the Reformation also stood its ground against the whole world by the position marked by the axiom "Let the word stand". And as for the American Lutheran Church, the "strictly confessional trend" has been predicted an imminent demise both on the part of the Reformed sects and on the part of liberal "American Lutheranism." The counsel was universally given to the fathers of the Missouri Synod to abandon "symbol theology" and adopt instead the customary "revival method" if they held dear the life of their church fellowship. Our fathers were not misled by this. They fought the human goings-on of revivalism in every form and insisted on teaching, in a calm

660) Jn. 8:31; 17:20; Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Cor. 13:3

661) 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.<w:t>662) Acts 2:42, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 11:21; 14:1

227 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 185]

and clear manner, publicly and especially, in the home, in the school, in the church and in its higher institutions of learning, the pure divine truth as it is revealed in God's infallible Word and is present as a confession in the symbols of the Lutheran church. And God has allowed the "Repristination Theology" of our fathers to gain space in this country as well, despite fierce opposition. But whether successful or not, God has commanded His Church to proclaim His Word to the world without subtraction or addition. That is as far as the church's responsibility goes. Success stands in God's hands. In this spirit, by God's grace, the whole Synodical Conference in this country is united and active in the church. To this end, of course, God must give and sustain teachers who not only have the necessary training, but are also educated in the school of the Holy Spirit, so that they know from their own experience how indispensably necessary it is for the church to hold steadfastly to sola gratia and sola Scriptura. Modern theology has unfortunately abandoned both truths. Finally, a summary characterization of modern theology includes a reference to its Reformed character in contrast to the Lutheran Church. Modern theology walks not in Lutheran but in Reformed paths. Schleiermacher's method, which seeks to draw Christian doctrine not from the Scriptures but from pious self-consciousness or Christian "experience," is the method of Zwingli and Calvin, inasmuch as both taught an immediate efficacy of the Holy Spirit not bound to the external word of Scripture. That Zwingli and Calvin did not consistently carry out their theological principle contrary to Scripture is explained partly by the powerful influence of Luther, partly by the fact that they were thrown back by practice on the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace, in contradiction with their actual theological principle of the immediate efficacy of the Holy Spirit. We have no quarrel with Reformed theology in regard to the external arrangement of Christian doctrines within the corpus doctrinae. In fact, Reformed theologians follow both the synthetic and analytical methods.663)

663) Calvin has in his Institutiones (final editing 1559) the transparent outer arrangement: I. De cognitione Dei Creatoris. II. De cognitione Dei Redemptoris. III. De modo percipiendae Christi gratiae. IV. De externis mediis vel adminiculis.

228 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. ~ 186]

Even according to the federal method, the Christian doctrine could be presented completely according to the Scriptures. What we have against Reformed theology is this, that in all doctrines by which it differs from the Lutheran Church, and whereupon the Reformed Church has constituted itself alongside the Lutheran Church, it denies the Scripture Principle and allows rationalistic axioms to prevail. This has already been stated under the section "The Cause of Parties within Outer Christendom."664)