Holy Scriptures.
(De Scriptura Sacra.)
1. The Holy Scriptures are for the Church of our time the only source and norm of Christian doctrines.
However, the Christian Church is older than the Holy Scriptures, that is, older than the written Word of God. Except for Moses, God brought the church into existence and preserved it through His Word taught orally (viva voce). The Christian Church came into existence immediately after the Fall, when God, after orally punishing sin670) , gave orally to the human race the promise of the woman's seed, which was to destroy the work of the devil, that is, to cancel man's guilt of sin and all the consequence of it, 671) and Adam and Eve believed the "first gospel". Through the Word of God proclaimed orally, in many ways, the Church of the following times has been preserved and spread up to Moses.672) However, since God
670) Gen. 3:8-14.<w:t>671) Gen. 3:15.
672) Gen. 4:26 should be noted. In the words: "At that time they began to preach the Lord's name," there is obviously a reference to assemblies for the proclamation and hearing of the Word of God. Cf. Luther z. St., I, 398 ff. Likewise J. P. Lange on this passage. Also Calov, Bibi. Illust, 3rd st: De initio praeconii publici plerique accipiunt. Lukas
234 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 193-194]
chose the written communication of His Word, the respective church was strictly bound to the Word of God recorded in writing.673) No man was permitted to add to or subtract from the Word of God given in writing.674) Thus, for the Old Testament Church, the written Word of God was a complete canon to which only God added from time to time.675) To the church of the New Testament, God
Osiander on this passage: Cultus ante natum Enos minus sollenniter et quasi privatim exercebantur.[Google] Further it is reported that God spoke with Noah (ch. 6 ff.), with Abraham (ch. 12 ff.) and so on. And these do not keep the Word of God communicated to them to themselves. Abraham is called a "prophet" (20:4), and also of him it is expressly reported (13:4) that he preached of the Lord's name. The "name of the Lord" is, in the first place, the name of the Lord κατ' εξοχήν namely, that by which God has made Himself a name among the guilty human race: the redemption of the human race from the guilt of sin and the consequences thereof through the seed of woman, Christ. The testimony that Peter, Acts 10:43, to all the prophets of the Old Testament also covers the passages Gen. 4:26; 13:4, etc.
673) To the question, what probably moved God to let the written fixation of his Word take the place of the oral proclamation, Baier answers (1, 106): 1.multiplicato genere humano; 2. vitaevero humanae spatio abbreviato, non aeque ut olim a patriarchis immediata revelatione Dei instructis viva voce coram instrui poterant omnes homines,, sed et 3. invectis variis doctrinae corruptelis, accedente 4. hominum informandorum infirmitate et memoriae imbecillitate, ut tamen praesto esset revelatio, ad quam in omni necessitatis casu secure confugi posset, litera scripta non abs re desiderabatur. [Google] If it has been objected that the almighty and all-wise God could have continued to teach and preserve his church even without written communication of his Word of God, we say with Baier: Divinae providentiae consultissimum visum est, capita divinarum revelationum scripto comprehendi [“It seemed most prudent to divine providence, that the chapters of the divine revelations should be included in writing”] — God has willed it so. Moreover, we know that God is the God of love towards the fallen human race, and that therefore, just as the gift of His incarnate Son (John 3:16), so also the gift of His written Word enters into the service of the saving love of sinners (2 Timothy 3:15-17). The children of God gratefully acknowledge this (Ps. 119) and guard against the sin of setting aside the written Word of God, or even directly denying that it is the unbreakable divine truth. Expressed according to the causal method: Causa impulsiva consignatae ex voluntate divina Scripturae Sacrae interna est bonitas Dei, externa (προκαταρκτική) hominum salvandorum indigentia. [“The impulsive cause consigned from the divine will of the Holy Scriptures is the internal goodness of God, the external (προκαταρκτική) need of men to be saved.”] (Baier I, 105.) That Scripture, however, has no necessitas absoluta, is also said by the old Lutheran theologians, and is to be explained in more detail in the use of Scripture.
674) Jos. 23:6; Deut. 4:2.
675) Quenstedt I, 51: Distinguendum inter tempora ante et post Mosen, sive inter revelationem, quae divinitus facta est patriarchis et sine
235 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 194]
then added to the word of the prophets the word of the apostles as the foundation of faith. The church of the New Testament is said to be "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets".676) This coordination of the word of the apostles and the word of the prophets is due to the fact that one and the same Spirit of Christ spoke, as through the prophets of the Old Testament, so also through the apostles of the New Testament. "They" — the prophets, in whom was "the Spirit of Christ" — "presented it not to themselves, but to us, which now" — at the time of the New Testament — "is preached unto you by them which preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven." 677) With the Word of the apostles of the New Testament, however, the teaching revelation of God to His Church is completely finished. When Christ says in the high priestly prayer: "I do not pray for them alone" — the apostles — "but also for those who will believe in me through their word" — the word of the apostles — he thereby declares the word of his apostles to be the basis of faith of the whole Christian Church until the Last Day. The fact that through the ministry of hundreds of thousands, who are not apostles, men become faithful in Christ, is due to the fact that the hundreds of thousands, even millions, do not proclaim their own word, but the word of the apostles and prophets. We again put Luther's remark to David's words:
scripturarum adminiculo per annos 2454, iuxta calculum Calvisianum, ab initio videlicet mundi usque ad Mosen viva voce fuit propagata; et revelationem, quae a Mose et prophetis literis est consignata. Illa theologiae principium fuit usque ad Mosen, haec post Mosen. Statim enim post primum canonem constitutum, qui ex Pentateucho, libro lobi et cantico Mosis constabat, non amplius revelatio viva voce tradita, sed sola illa, quae literis erat consignata, religionis norma fuit ac principium. [Google] To the Scriptures of the Old Testament as a complete canon for the church of the Old Testament Christ also points Luke 16:29 with the words: "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them."
676) Eph. 2:20. Stöckhardt on this passage [Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, p. xxx; English ed. — p. 153]: "The apostles come into consideration here not according to their personal nature and character, but according to their official activity, precisely as apostles, and that in their relationship to the church of all times. … The apostles have long since died (in our time), but still live on and speak to us in their writings. ... And so the second genitive, προφητών, can only refer to the Old Testament prophets and the writings of the prophets, which stand on the same level as the apostolic writings and form one genus with them, hence αποστόλων and προφητών are included under one article."
677) 1 Petr. 1:10-12.
236 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 195]
"The Spirit of the Lord has spoken through me" (2 Sam. 23:2) here: "We may not yet lead anyone to such glory who is not a prophet. This we may do, provided we also be holy and have the Holy Spirit, that we catechumens and disciples of the prophets may boast ourselves, as those who repeat and preach what we have heard and learned from the prophets and apostles, and are also certain that the prophets taught it. These are called in the Old Testament the 'prophets children,' who set nothing of their own nor new, as the prophets do, but teach what they have from the prophets, and are 'Israel,' as David says, to whom he makes the Psalms." 678)
It can only be asked where the New Testament church of the apostles finds word for sure. The apostles themselves refer us to their writings for this question. First, they declare their written word to be identical in content with their verbally proclaimed word. The apostle John says: "What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you (άπαγγέλλομεν νμϊν) ..., and such we write to you (γράφομεν υμϊν)." 679) So also according to the content Paul coordinates his oral and his written word: "Hold to the statutes which ye are taught, whether by our word or epistle," εϊτε διά λόγου, είτε δί επιστολής ήμών.680) Although not all that Christ and the apostles taught orally is written.681) yet the instruction in the apostles' doctrines is not merely abundant but superabundant, because in them one and the same thing is said not merely once but many times. "That I always write to you one and the same (τά αυτά, the same) does not vex me and makes you the more certain. "682) On the other hand, we see that the apostles already urge very firmly the sola Scriptura. In the apostolic church, the same series of pseudo sources of knowledge and pseudo norms that later and until our time have plagued Christianity, namely alleged prophethood or "spirit," alleged apostleship or "tradition," and alleged letters of the apostles, asserted themselves against the divine authority of the apostles' word. In contrast, Paul points to his written Word as the sure source and norm of true apostolic doctrine. Regarding "prophecy" and "spirit" present in the church at the time of the apostles,
678) St. L. III, 1890.<w:t>679) 1 Jn. 1:3. 4.<w:t>680) 2 Thess. 2:15.
681) Jn. 21:25.<w:t>682) Phil. 3:1.
237 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 196]
the apostle prescribes the following behavior to the Christian congregations: They should not absolutely reject the spirit and prophecy, but rather test them, but carry out this test in the absence of the apostle according to the apostle's word. When in the Corinthian congregation prophecy and spirit placed themselves next to and above his apostolic authority, he writes to the congregation: "If any man let himself think that he is a prophet or spiritual (προφήτης είναι ή πνευματικός), let him recognize" (έπιγινωσκέτω, acknowledge, agnoscat, namely, as a norm) "what I write to yourselves (γράφω); for they are the Lord's commandments." To this the apostle concludes the words, "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant," εί δε τις άγνοεΐ, αγνοείτω.683) With this Paul gives the instruction: should anyone who imagines himself to be a prophet or thinks he has the Spirit not recognize what the apostle writes as Christ's commandment, that is, not as a divine norm, he is to be recognized by this behavior as a pseudoprophet and left to himself as an ignoramus. Important is 2 Thess. 2:2, where the apostle opposes his written instruction about the time of Christ's return, as to the "spirit", so also to the alleged apostle's word (tradition) and the alleged apostle's writing. Christians are not to be swayed or even frightened μήτε διά πνεύματος μήτε διά λόγον μήτε δί επιστολής ώς δί ημών.684) In order for the congregations to distinguish genuine apostolic writing from the alleged, imputed one, Paul writes the greeting in his own hand in his letters.685)
The Scripture Principle is rejected and instead the human ego is elevated to the chair in the Christian Church:
683) 1 Cor. 14:37, 38.
684) Lünemann: Ως δί ημών is to be bound with διά λόγον as well as with δί επιστολής, and the former is to be understood from oral statements, which one imputed to the apostle, the latter from written statements, which one imputed to him by means of a fictitious letter. On the other hand, to refer also to διά πνεύματος with Erasmus ώς δί ημών is impossible, since λόγοι and έπιστολαί could well be circulated as coming from an absent one, but not enthusiastic prophetic discourses, since in such the personal presence of the speaker was necessary." Also v. 15, Pauli λόγος and επιστολή are bound together, είτε διά λόγον, είτε δί επιστολής ημών.
685) 2 Thess. 3:17: "The greeting with my hand Pauli; this is the sign (σημεΐον) in all letters; so (οντω) I write."
238 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 196-197]
1. By calling on natural reason. Under the expression "natural reason" we deal here with all that which man knows and can know of God and divine things apart from the revelation of Holy Scriptures. It has already been stated under various relations that this natural knowledge of God and divine things is limited to a knowledge of God's existence and divine Law, and that this knowledge leaves men under God's wrath and curse because they cannot keep God's law. Of the Gospel of Christ, which promises forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ's satisfactio vicaria and forms the essential content of the Christian religion, no thought has ever entered the heart of man.686) It has already been explained that this ignorance applies not only to the uneducated mankind, but also to the elite of it, especially also to the trained reason of the philosophers.687) Whoever, therefore, in matters of the Christian religion appeals to natural reason, and seeks to draw and standardize from it, wholly or in part, the Christian doctrine, commits a μετάβασις εις αλλο γένος, and makes an attempt to place human unreason in the place of the Word of God in the chair of the Christian Church. This is done by the Unitarians of all ages, who openly confess that for "reasons of reason" they reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, of the metaphysical deity of Christ, and of the satisfactio vicaria, as will be demonstrated more fully in the exposition of these doctrines. The Unitarians stand extra ecclesiam. This is further done by all those who, within the Christian Church, reject individual parts of the Christian doctrines on grounds of natural reason. It has already been shown that the Reformed Church substitutes rationalistic axioms for the Scriptural principle in the doctrines by which it differs from the Lutheran Church and has divided Protestant Christianity.688) Also, it has already been pointed out that nothing other than rationalism is the mother of both Synergism (denial of sola gratia) and Calvinism (denial of universalis gratia).689) Both in Scripture and in profane usage, the word "reason" has yet another
686) 1 Cor. 2:6ff.
687) Cf. on the philosophical concept of religion p. 16 ff.
688) p. 25 ff.<w:t>689) p. 34.
239 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 197-198]
meaning. It also denotes being rational, that is, the human ability to take something given into the mind and to consider it in the mind. This is the so-called usus rationis ministerialis (organicus) in contrast to the usus rationis magisterialis. The use of reason in the sense of the usus ministerialis naturally also takes place in theology, because the Holy Spirit only works and sustains faith through the Word of God received into the human spirit. This use of reason is therefore also very emphatically inculcated in Scripture. Rom. 10:14: Πώς πιστενσονσιν ον ονκ ήκονσαν;. Rom. 10:17: Π πίστις έξ ακοής. Jn. 5:39: Ερευνάτε τάς γραφάς. Matt. 24:15: Ό αναγινώσκων [what is said in the prophet Daniel of the abomination of desolation] νοείτω. The example of Mary, Luke 2:19: "Mary kept (σννετήρει) all these words and moved them (σνμβάλλουσα) in her heart." Part of this usus instrumentalis of reason, that is, of hearing, receiving, and considering the words of Scripture, is that we adhere to the laws of language (grammar) and human laws of thought (logic) present in Scripture, because in Holy Scriptures God has entered into human language and into human ways of thinking. God, as Luther repeatedly reminds us, "became man" in Holy Scriptures (Scriptura Sacra est Deus incarnatus). In this sense, the axiom applies: theologia debet esse grammatica, that is, the theologian who wants to recognize and teach the doctrine revealed in Scripture must adhere very precisely to the use of language present in Scripture itself. In Luther, especially in the polemical parts of his writings, the remark recurs that anyone who is lacking in grammar must also necessarily be lacking in theology. The same can be said of the orthodox Lutheran dogmatists. As resolutely as they reject reason as a principle of theology on the one hand, so resolutely do they urge the usus instrumentalis of reason on the other. To this they also count the whole philological and logical apparatus, as long as it merely serves the understanding of the content of Scripture and does not set any content of its own. Quenstedt says:690) Distinguendum inter rationem passive sumptam pro subiecto informationis et acceptam normaliter pro principio probationis. . . . Illa in quavis
690) Systema I, 55 ff.
240 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 198]
rerum et sic quoque divinarum cognitione necessaria est ut principium quo, non enim nisi intellectu seu ratione homo intelligit; haec vero in rerum divinarum cognitione ut principium quod non admittitur. . . . Sine usu rationis seu intellectus nemo in theologia versari potest; neque enim brutis aut animalibus rationis expertibus proponenda est theologia. Uti itaque homo sine oculis non potest videre, sine auribus non potest audire, sine lingua non potest gustare, ita sine ratione, sine qua ne quidem homo est, non potest percipere, quae fides (quam „animam animae” appellat Augustinus, sermo 250. de tempore) περιφερεία sua complectitur. [Google] . . . Distinguendum inter principia organica, qualia sunt grammatica, logica, rhetorica, studium linguarum etc., et principia philosophica stricte dicta. Illa in theologia adhibenda sunt (utpote adminicula theologiae acquirendae), cum sine illis nec sensus aut significatio vocum erui (quod grammaticae), nec figurae modique loquendi expendi (quod rhetoricae), nec connexiones et consequentiae percipi, nec discursus institui (quod logicae est) possint. Bene D. Balth. Meisnerus Disput, de Calvinismo fugiendo, th. 83.: „Ratione suo modo utendum esse in rebus theologicis, quis nostrum umquam negavit? Annon utimur ipsi, quoties vel proprietatem linguae vel structuram totius contextus attendimus? Ex auditu est fides, Rom. 10, 18, Ad auditum vero usus rationis requiritur, ut vox a voce discernatur et aliquis sensus percipiatur. [Google] Sic in confirmando, in destruendo, in exponendo rationis usum necessarium esse, non imus inficias, quia in omnibus τρόπος παιδείας et modus in logicis praescriptus observari debet.” Distinguendum inter rationis ministerium, cum instar ancillae cedit herae seu dominae (ex antiqua comparatione Ambrosii, 2. de Abrahamo, c. 10.), et rationis magisterium, cum sibi iudicium arrogat de rebus ignotis et supra captum positis. . . . Distinguendum inter rationem sibi relictam sive iuxta principia sua naturalia iudican-tem, et rationem intra Verbi divini orbem conclusam et castigatam sive e Sacra Scriptura illustratam. Hanc de rebus fidei iudicare posse, non negamus; illi autem iudicium de rebus fidei competere, inficiamur. [Google] (L. c., f. 55 sqq.) By distinguishing between the usus rationis ministerialis and magisterialis, the ancient theologians also decide the question whether there is a real contradiction between theology and reason or human science (philosophy). They answer: The truth is only one. A contradiction comes out only
241 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 199-200]
when reason, which has become mad, takes the liberty of passing judgment on things that are beyond its domain. Quenstedt writes: 691) Obiiciunt adversarii: religionem multa habere supra, nihil vero contra rationem. Resp. 1.: Articuli fidei in se non sunt contra rationem, sed solum supra rationem; per accidens vero iit, ut sint etiam contra rationem, quando ratio iudicium sibi de illis sumit ex suis principiis, nec sequitur lucem Verbi, sed eosdem negat et impugnat. 2. Articuli fidei non sunt solum supra, sed et contra rationem corruptam et depravatam, quae illos stultitiam esse iudicat. Instat Smalzius, Disp. IV. contra Franz., p. 137: „Doceat quis unam sententiam sacrarum literarum pugnare cum ratione, et tunc ratio taceat in ecclesia.” Eesp.: Cum ratione in terminis suis sese cöntinente nulla sacrarum literarum sententia pugnat, sed cum ratione terminos suos egrediente omnia fidei mysteria pugnant, ut trinitatis, incarnationis etc. [Google] We must not conceal from ourselves, of course, that the struggle which men wage, calling on their reason (science), against Scripture and the Christian religion will never cease, because the natural man (ψυχικός άνθρωπος, 1 Cor. 2:14) is God's enemy (εχϑρα είς ϑεόν, Rom. 8:7) and especially considers and can consider the essence of Christianity, the gospel, only foolishness (μωρία αντώ εστιν καί ον δνναται γνώναι, 1 Cor. 2:14). In this situation it will not fail that, as long as a man has not become a Christian by contritio and fides, he will assert both his entire ignorance and his limited knowledge in the natural field against Holy Scriptures and Christian doctrine. Quenstedt says in regard to this point:692) Distinguendum inter philosophiam abstracte et ratione suae essentiae consideratam et philosophiam concrete et ratione existentiae in subiecto per peccatum corrupto spectatam. Priori modo veritati divinae nequaquam opponitur, non enim nisi unica ... et ratione obiectorum sibi invicem subordinatorum harmonica datur veritas; posteriori vero modo ob intellectus ignorantiam et voluntatis perversionem non raro ad depravationem et inanem deceptionem a philosopho praepostere adhibetur, Col. 2, 8. [Google]
2. By calling on born-again reason or its numerous synonyms such as: pious self-consciousness, Christian experience, Christian ego, faith consciousness, faith,
691) Systema I, 62.<w:t xml:space="preserve">692) Systema I, 63.
242 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 200-201]
Spirit, etc. It has already been demonstrated in detail that all these sources and norms — apart from the scriptural word and detached from the scriptural word — are based on self-deception.693) We had to call it an insult to the new or born-again man to ascribe to him the folly of teaching from within himself, disregarding the Word of Scripture. Where this happens, it is not the new man who is doing theology, but the old man. The new man recognizes the Scriptures as God's infallible Word694) and adheres to the general rule in force in the Christian church: "If anyone speaks, let him speak it as the Word of God." 695) As soon as the new man really reflects on himself, he recognizes the impulse to teach from his own ego instead of from the doctrines of Scripture as an erroneous, even godless self-consciousness, for which he asks God for forgiveness. According to the process of Luther and the old Lutheran theologians, Walther also incessantly inculcated this. He wrote, for example: "Even the enlightened and reborn reason cannot be a principle of knowledge apart from the Scriptures, which are coordinated with it, since it belongs to the essence of an enlightened or reborn reason that it does not make itself but the Scriptures its principle of knowledge in matters of faith, 2 Cor. 10:5, apart from the fact that there is no completely renewed and reborn reason in any human being here. No completely renewed and enlightened reason is to be found in any man, Gen. 18:10-15." 696) In short, the effort on the part of modern theology to elevate the "born-again ego" to the principle of knowledge of Christian doctrine, while at the same time rejecting Scripture as the Word of God and as the sole source and norm of theology, amounts in fact to an effort to place the natural human ego, the flesh, on the throne of rulership in the Church. It is under Christian pretense the plain rationalism.
693) S. 73 ff.<w:t>694) Jn. 8:47.<w:t>695) 1 Petr. 4:11.
696) L. u. W. 13, 99. From this, Quenstedt also points to the Calvinists, who likewise invoked reborn reason as the source and norm of Christian doctrine: Urgent Calviniani, se intelligere rationem regenitam seu rationem humanam post regenerationem spiritualem factam, ,ut Calvinus, Inst. IV, 17, 26. … Respondet b. Dannhauerus: Obtineret aliquid haec regestio, si ratio in homine reperiretur pura, sine fontis peccaminosi adhuc residui affluxu; at turbata est aqua, similis aquae dulci, saltem suspecta veneni, cum omne figmentum cordis humani malum sit omni tempore. Et annon Sarah regenita? Et tamen promissum Domini ridet, irridet, ut paradoxum. [Google]
243 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 201]
Dr. Stöckhardt judged very correctly in a review of Frank's theology:697) "Frank's theology, which fights Ritschl's rationalism, is itself only a new kind and edition of rationalism, rationalism in church garb. It is natural reason which in Frank's systems picks apart Christian realities in its own way, dissects them, and in turn binds them, rhymes them together. … It is a strange thing that Frank's mill of reason has not ground all Christian dogmas short and small, that Frank nevertheless leaves certain elements of Christian truth standing. That is not in the system, that is inconsistency. ... This “I”, which decides in its own authority in matters of faith and truth, which makes and sets doctrines, constructs God, heaven and earth and everything arbitrarily out of itself, is basically the “I”, the spirit, the inner light of the enthusiast spirits." What is "vaunted by the Spirit" without a scriptural word is never the Holy Spirit. Luther: "The Holy Spirit does not work without the Word and before the Word, but comes with and through the Word and does not go further than the Word goes." 698)
3. By the demand that the Christian doctrines are to be taken not from the scriptural passages dealing with the individual doctrines (sedes doctrinae), but "from the whole of Scripture". This phrase, from which truly no reasonable sense can be derived, has been given a new course by "the reformer of the church of the nineteenth century", Schleiermacher. He says:699) "The citing of individual passages of Scripture in dogmatics is something highly deplorable, indeed, in and of itself insufficient." But this meaningless phrase has been adopted by pretty much all the main representatives of modern theology, from the far left to the far right. We find it also in Ihmels700) and before that in Hofmann. 701) In his critique of Hofmann's proof of Scripture, Kliefoth rightly called this opposition between the whole of Scripture and the individual statements of Scripture an "incomprehensible phrase". 702) In fact, it stands that we can only arrive at the whole of Christian doctrine by taking the individual doctrines from the scriptural
697) L. u. W. 42, 74 f.<w:t xml:space="preserve">698) St. L. XI, 1073.
699) Glaubenslehre I, § 30.700) Central Questions 2, p. 88 f.
701) Schriftbeweis 2 I, 671 ff.
702) The Scriptural Evidence of D. J. Chr. K. von Hofmann, p. 32.
244 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 202]
passages — always considered in their context, of course — which deal with the doctrines in question. What is claimed to be the whole of Scripture or the whole of Christian doctrine, disregarding the individual statements of Scripture, is merely a human product. The strange address of the whole of Scripture in contrast to the individual statements of Scripture has been devised in order to completely dull Scripture under the appearance of great Scripturalism and to make room for the theology of the "pious self-consciousness" of the theologizing subject in the church. Kliefoth has warningly reminded us that the "incomprehensible phrase" of the whole of Scripture is not an "innocuous" phrase "when it falls into narrow-minded heads, as examples prove." Kliefoth's expression is strong and ungallant, but not stronger and more ungallant than the expressions we find, e.g., 1 Tim. 6:4: τετύφωτ αι, μηδέν επιoταμένος. As to the matter, it should be added that not only the heads into which that "incomprehensible phrase" fell, but already the heads in which it originated belong to the category of the heads described by Kliefoth. That phrase owes its origin, after all, only to the blindness that can be called the blindness κατ εξοχήν, namely, the blindness in which someone who claims the position of a teacher in the Christian church does not yet recognize, or at least no longer recognizes, God's Word as the Word of God, rejects it as the source and norm of Christian doctrine, and therefore endeavors to substitute in the Christian church for the εϊς διδάσκαλος, which is Christ in His Word,703) the self-consciousness of the theologizing human subject. This not knowing is so great that Christ himself is strange about it: Διά τί την λαλιάν την εμήν ον γινώσκετε;704)
4. By calling on the church, the doctrinal decisions of the church (councils, synods), the pope etc. According to Scripture, it stands that the Christian Church has no doctrine of its own at all, namely, no doctrine apart from Christ's Word. Christ is her εις διδάσκαλος, εις καθηγητής.705) She is commanded to teach Christ's doctrines.706) She has Christ's word in the word of his apostles and prophets,707) and by that word she remains on
703) Matt. 23:8; Jn. 8:31-32.<w:t>704) Jn. 8:43.
705) Matt. 23:8. 10.
706) Matt. 28:20: πάντα δσα ενετειλάμην υμΐν'.
707) Jn. 17:20; Eph. 2:20; 1 Petr. 1:10-12.
245 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 203]
Christ's explicit instruction.708) Insofar as the church does not stick to Christ's word, but teaches the doctrines of men, it falls out of its calling and "babbles," as Luther crudely puts it.709) The teachers who do not bring Christ's doctrine or, what is the same, the doctrine of the apostles, are not to be treated as fellow believers, but are to be carefully and resolutely avoided as sectarians.710) That the voice of the church and the voice of Holy Scriptures are not two different voices, but one and the same voice, Luther took powerfully against Erasmus when the latter offered to submit his meaning to the church, even if it did not reach the meaning of Scripture. Luther reproaches him: "What are you saying, Erasmus? Is it not enough to submit the sense of Scripture? Do you also subject it to the decisions of the church? What can the Church decide that has not been decided beforehand in Scripture?"711) The Apology calls what the apostles and prophets teach in their writings the consensus ecclesiae, the concurring doctrine of the whole Christian Church.712) We therefore know what to think of all those who want to place next to Scripture as the source and norm of Christian doctrine the consensus of the Church, be it the consensus of the Church in general, be it the consensus of a few centuries.713) All of them, eo ipso, renounce the Scripture Principle. This is the case even if they want to call the consensus of the Church only the "secondary principle". In practice, the secondary principle becomes the primary one.
708) Jn. 8:31-32; 15:7: εάν μείνητε εν εμοι και τά ρήματά μον εν νμϊν με ivy.
709) The detailed explanation p. 60 ff.
710) 2 John 9-11; Rom. 16:17.
711) Opp. v. a.VII, 122: Quid ais, Erasme? Non satis est submisisse sensum Scripturis? Etiam ecclesiae decretis submittis? Quid illa potest decernere, non decretum in Scripturis? St. L. XVIII, 1678.
712) M. 102, 8; 178, 66; 179, 73 [Trigl. 145, 83 🔗; 271, 66 🔗; 273, 73 🔗]: Allegat [Peter, Acts 10:43] consensum omnium prophetarum. Hoc vere est allegare ecclesiae auctoritatem. — Profecto consensus prophetarum iudicandus est universalis ecclesiae consensus esse. — Petrus clare allegat consensum prophetarum, et apostolorum scripta testantur eos idem sentire. [Google]
713) William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1645. RE.2 VIII, 485 ff. On Calixtus' Consensus quinquesaecularis Quenstedt I, 65 sq. Kahnis, Inner Corridor 3 I, 105: "When Calixtus spoke of two principles in the church, Scripture and tradition, this was obviously at the expense of the Protestant principle of Scripture and was again an approximation to the Roman church. (Baier-Walther I, 87.)
246 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 203-204]
The secondary principle, after all, is invented for the purpose of subsequently interpreting or limiting the primary principle, Holy Scriptures. That according to which Scripture is interpreted is placed above Scripture and is used to limit the authority of Scripture. Scripture descends into norma normata. This is how it was meant, despite assurances to the contrary, by both Vincentius of Lerinum († 450) and George Calixt († 1656) and others of Helmstedt.714)
As far as the position of Christians and Christian theologians on the testimony of the Church is concerned, two extremes are to be avoided. First, they do not despise the testimony of the church, but take note of it, rejoice in it, and are strengthened in their faith when they recognize that God also in earlier times raised up witnesses to the truth revealed in Scripture.715) Secondly, they do not overestimate the testimony of the church, as if it could be the foundation of Christian faith apart from and alongside Scripture. Rather, they hold that neither the sayings of individuals nor the sayings of a whole number of individuals (ecclesia repraesentativa) can make or establish doctrines of faith.716) The old Lutheran
714) Quenstedt I, 65 sq. Kahnis' judgment in the previous note is very mild.
715) Thus, also the Augustana repeatedly refers to the fact that it does not teach any news, but only confesses such doctrines, which also had witnesses in the ancient church. M., pp. 43. 47. 48. 69. [Trigl, pp. 51 🔗, 59 🔗, 61 🔗, 93 🔗] Likewise the Formula of Concord, pp. 688, 64. [Trigl. 1037, 64 🔗] Cf. pp. 733 ff. [Trigl. p. 1107 ff. 🔗] the Catalogus Testimoniorum. — Chemnitz says in his Examen Concilii Tridentini, Genevae 1667, p. 71, under the section De Traditionibus: Iniuriam nobis facit Andradius, quod clamitat, nos in universum antiquitatis testimonio nihil tribuere, patrum autorita-tem nihili pendere, ecclesiae approbationem, fidem maiestatemque labefactare. Bona enim conscientia affirmare possumus, nos post Sacrae Scripturae lectionem aliquid, quantum quidem Domini gratia concedit, in inquirendo et investigando verae et purioris antiquitatis consensu posuisse et quotidie adhuc ponere. Patrum enim scriptis suum et quidem honorificum, qui illis debetur, tribuimus locum, ut qui multos Scripturae locos praeclare explicaverunt, antiqua ecclesiae dogmata contra novas haereticorum corruptelas defenderunt idque ex Scriptura, multos locos doctrinae recte explicarunt. [Google] Chemnitz takes this further in detail.
716) Here belong the well-known words of the Smalcald Articles: Pontificii allegant Augustinum et quosdam patres, qui de purgatorio scripserint, et non putant nos intelligere, ad quid et quare sic illi locuti sint. Augustinus non scribit esse purgatorium, nec etiam habet testimonium Scripturae, quo nitatur, sed in dubio relinquit, num sit, et inquit matrem
247 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 204-205]
teachers also point to the fact that a consensus of the church does not exist apart from the doctrines of Scripture, even if one limits oneself to the first five centuries to determine the consensus. Quenstedt gives this reason: "Many writings of the ancient teachers of the Church have not been published at all, few of those that have been published have come down to us, most have been lost; also many of the Fathers, especially from the earliest times, have written little or nothing, and what is left of them is mutilated, falsified, and corrupted." And last, and as the main reason, Quenstedt states, "The consensus of a few fathers is not immediately the consensus of the whole church." 717) With the sentence
suam petiisse, ut sui commemoratio fieret ad altare sive sacramentum. Ad hoc in universum nihil nisi hominum et quidem unius atque alterius devotio fuit, non constituens articulum fidei, id quod solius Dei est. Nostri autem pontificii sententias istas hominum citant, ut fides habeatur tetris, blasphemis et maledictis nundinationibus de missis pro animabus in purgatorio seu de inferiis et oblationibus etc. … Ex patrum enim verbis et factis non sunt exstruendi articuli fidei, alioquin etiam articulus fidei fieret victus ipsorum, vestimentorum ratio, domus etc., quemadmodum cum reliquiis sanctorum luserunt. Regulam autem aliam habemus, ut videlicet Verbum Dei condat articulos fidei, et praeterea nemo, ne angelus quidem. (M., p. 303. [Trigl. 465, 13 ff. 🔗] Here belong the clear and concise explanations of the Formula of Concord in both the Epitome and the Solida Declaratio about the specific difference between Holy Scriptures and all other writings, including the symbols. M., pp. 517, 1, 2, 7. 8; 568, 3. [Trigl. 777, 1, 2, 7, 8 🔗; 851, 3 🔗]
717) The whole passage in Quenstedt (1, 66) is instructive and interesting: Probatur πόρισμα: Ex consensus illius nullitate seu non-existentia. Multa antiquorum ecclesiae doctorum scripta sunt ανέκδοτα; pauca eorum, quae edita sunt, ad nos pervenerunt; plurima interciderunt; multi etiam patres, praesertim ex antiquissima antiquitate, parum vel nihil scripserunt, et quae adhuc supersunt patrum scripta, illa mutilata, interpolata et corrupta sunt. Consensus autem paucorum patrum non statim est consensus totius ecclesiae. — Regerunt adversarii: optima tamen scripta patrum a coelesti pronoea esse servata, viliora tamen periisse. Ast quis huius rei fidem faciet? Quis leges praescribet providentiae divinae, aut quis persuadebit, in busto bibliothecae seu Alexandrino, de quo Gellius lib. VI. noct. Att. c. ult., seu Diocletianeo, de quo Dr. Dannhauerus in Christeid., p. 231, viliora tantum periisse monumenta, fati dentibus erepta esse cedro digna ? Imo b. Lutherus divinae providentiae potius adscribit in der Vorrede ueber den 1. Wittenb. Teii, "quod haud exigua scriptorum ecclesiasticorum pars pessum iverit, ne homines impendendum Sacrae Scripturae lectioni ac scrutinio tempus patrum et conciliorum volutationi impendere necesse haberent". — Instant: ex εκδότοις satis aestimari posse ecclesiae antiquae consensum. Resp., posse
248 ><w:t>The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 205-206]
of Vincentius of Lerinum, that it is necessary to maintain quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est,718) practically nothing can be done. The Romans cut the knot by referring back to the Pope as the authoritative interpreter of the doctrinal tradition as well. Protestant representatives of the principle of tradition, such as Calixt, are forced to rely on the dogma historians, and thus end up in the realm of human authority alongside Scripture.
As for the specifically Roman principle of theology, the Roman theologians name as theological principles the Holy Scriptures, the Tradition, the Councils, the Pope.719) But because the Pope is granted the final exposition of Scripture, Tradition, the councils' decisions, etc., he is also ultimately the only principle of papist theology.720) The
particulariter et probabiliter aestimari, concedo, nego de fide divina; posse in iis, in quibus συμψηφισμός apparet, non in aliis, ubi ipsimet in partes eunt; posse aestimari, si in aliquam fidei traditionem uno eodemque consensu aperte, universaliter et perseveranter conspirarint. Sic v. g. de canone Scripturae pulcherrimum habemus concentum doctorum veterum, si colligas omnia testimonia per quinque et plura saecula; ast ille consensus non perinde apparet in dogmatibus. Quanta saepe in patrum scriptis etiam de sensu Scripturae discrepantia? quantus saepe hiatus temporum? quanta locorum vacuna, ubi nihil literis proditum? Respiceret ille quinquesaecularis consensus solum controversias coaetaneas, non ortas post quinque saecula haereses. [Google]
718) R. Seeberg, Dogmengesch. 1895, I, 328 f.
719) Thus Bellarmin, De Concilüs II, 12, 1, names four principles: Verbum Dei scriptum, traditiones άγραφους, auctoritatem conciliorum et Romanum pontificem. (Bei Quenstedt I, 53.) IOmnis doctrinae ratio, quae fidelibus tradenda sit, Verbo Dei continetur, quod in Scripturam traditionesque distributum est. Im Tridentinum lautet es sessio IV (Smets, p. 14) so: Tridentina synodus . . . perspiciens, hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, quae, ab ipsius Christi ore ab apostolis acceptae aut ab ipsis apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt, orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, necnon traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem tum ad mores pertinentes, tamquam vel ore-tenus a Christo vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas et continua successione in ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu et reverentia suscipit et veneratur. [Google]
720) Hülsemann: Etsi fingant, se resolvere fidem suam in Sacram Scripturam et primam veritatem iuxta sensum universalis ecclesiae
249 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 206-207]
The infallibility of the pope has been taught in the Roman Church by individuals and whole parties before. However, there were different opinions within the Church as to whether the Pope was infallible in union with the Church (with the councils and teachers of the Church) or alone, for his own person. The latter view, already held earlier by the Jesuits, was elevated by the Vatican Council of 1870 to the status of a statement of faith for the whole Church.721) The Roman theology, in so far as it is determined by the "infallibility" of the Pope, has as its principle the satanic exaltation of the one who sits down in the temple of God as a god and acts as if he were God. 722) Instead of sticking to Christ's word according to the divine order, the Roman theology puts above Christ's word the great papal infallibility lie, which is put into the world by Satan's action and finds faith in the world by Satan's action. 723)
In order to prove the calling to the testimony of the church as a theological principle alongside the word of Scripture as justified, Roman theologians in particular have referred to passages of Scripture such as Matt. 28:20. Here, the argument goes, Christ promises the church his presence of grace until the Last Day. Therefore, it is no more than fair to assume that the church will not err in the testimony of truth it is charged with. This argument has puzzled some. — What is to be said in reply is clear from the passage itself. Christ promises Matt. 28:20
intellectam, interpretationem tamen universalis ecclesiae resolvunt in interpretationem unius hominis, qui appellatur ab iis Romanus pontifex.[Google] (Anti-Bellarminus, cap. I, thes. 20. Quoted in Quenstedt I, 53.)
721) Pius IX: Docemuset divinitus revelatum dogma esse definimus: Romanum pontificem, cum ex cathedra loquitur, id est, cum omnium Christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens pro suprema sua apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa ecclesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Peter promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemtor ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque eiusmodi Romani pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae, irreformabiles esse. (Constitutio dogmatica prima de ecclesia Christi, edita in sess. 4th Concilii Vaticani: "Pastor aeternus." [Google] A. 1870. d. 18. Iulii. Vid. The canons and resolutions of the Vatican Council. German-Latin edition by G. Schneemann 1871, p. 45 sq.) (With Baier-Walther I, 81.)
722) 2 Thess. 2:4.
723) 2 Thess. 2:9-12. The more detailed exposition under the section "The Anti-Christ", III, 527-534.
250 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 207-208]
the church his presence of grace after he has given it the commission to teach only his word: "Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you." Christ is with His Church with His revelation of grace and His effect of grace in His Word commanded to the Church. Therefore, insofar as the Church teaches and confesses Christ's doctrine, she cannot, however, err; but insofar as she teaches anything apart from and apart from Christ's doctrine, not only is she not infallible, but she certainly errs.
5. by calling private revelations, also called "immediate" or "new revelations" (revelationes immediatae, revelationes novae). By private revelations we mean such revelations about the Christian doctrine as have allegedly come to individuals through visions, apparitions, inner intercession, inner voice, inner light, etc. According to these private or direct revelations, the doctrinal revelation available in the Holy Scriptures is then to be interpreted, corrected and supplemented. The Christian Church has at all times been troubled by people who boasted of private revelations alongside the word of the prophets and apostles. This already happened in the apostolic church. We see from passages like 1 Cor. 14:37 and 2 Thess. 2:2 that in the apostolic congregations there were "prophets" or "spiritual people" who wanted to coordinate their word with the apostle's word and therefore are rebuked very sharply by Paul in the former passage. From the later church, the Montanists, Donatists, Messalians, etc. belong here; from the time of the Reformation, the Anabaptists, Schwenkfeldians, etc., who rejected Luther's insistence on the exclusive validity of Holy Scriptures as a "literal service" and wanted to contrast the "external" word of Scripture with the so-called "internal" word as a higher revelation.724) From the following
724) Luther describes in the writing "Wider die himmlischen Propheten" (Against the Heavenly Prophets), St. L. XX, 202 ff., the manner of Carlstadt and his comrades: "What God orders outwardly to the spirit inwardly, as has been said, oh, how scornfully and mockingly he smites it to the wind and wants to enter the spirit beforehand! … When you ask them, How then do you enter into the same high spirit? they do not point you to the outward gospel, but to the land of milk and honey, and say, Stand in boredom, as I have stood, and you will know it; there the heavenly voice will come and God himself will speak to you. … Do you see the devil, the enemy of divine order? How he opens your mouth with the words "spirit, spirit, spirit! and yet, at the same time, he outlines both bridges, footbridge and path, ladder and everything, through which the spirit is to come to you, namely the outward
251 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 208-209]
up to our time the Quakers, Labadists, Swedenborgians, Irvingites, Amana Society, Mormons, etc. belong here from the beginning of time until our time. 725) In general it has to be said: All those who separate the efficacy of the Holy Spirit from the word of the Scriptures make private or immediate revelations the principle in theology. They are all factually correct summarized under the general name "enthusiasts" (fanatici, enthusiastae). Here we find together in principle: a. the Papists, inasmuch as they ascribe to themselves an infallible teaching authority outside of and alongside the written Word of God. Luther, in the Smalcald Articles, has grasped the situation completely clearly when he says: "For the papacy is also a vain enthusiasm, in which the pope boasts that all rights are in the shrine of his heart (in scrinio sui pectoris), and what he judges and says with his church is to be spirit and law, even if it is over and against Scripture or the oral word." And further: "Enthusiasm ... Is also the origin of the papacy." 726) b. All Reformed, inasmuch as they, with Zwingli and Calvin, and with more recent Reformed theologians such as Shedd, Hodge, and Böhl, allow the saving action of the Holy Spirit to take place immediately, outside of and alongside the word. Efficacious grace acts immediately.727) c. All modern theologians, inasmuch as they deny that the Scriptures are God's infallible Word, and therefore seek fundamentally to draw and standardize Christian doctrine from "pious self-consciousness," "religious experience," etc. This theological doctrine of principle coincides in kind with the in scrinio pectoris papae and with Zwingli's: Dux vel vehiculum Spiritui non est necessarium; ipse enim est virtus et latio, qua cuncta feruntur, non qui ferri opus habeat. We have seen, therefore, that the scurrilous names with which the newer theologians suspect and condemn the Scripture Principle (paper pope, literal theology, intellectualism, etc.) pretty much coincide with the scurrilous vocabulary used by the Roman theologians and the Reformed enthusiasts against Luther and the Lutheran
ordinances of God in baptism in the flesh, signs and oral Word of God, and will teach thee, not how the Spirit shall come to thee, but how thou shalt come to the Spirit, that thou shalt learn to ride upon the clouds, and to ride upon the wind, saying not how, or when, or where, or what, but shalt know it thyself as they do."
725) The detailed evidence in Günther, Symbolik 2, p. 90 ff. [sic: 4th edition 90 ff.] [Engelder, Popular Symbolics, p. 378 ff.; 388 ff.; 323 ff.; 423 f.; 440 ff.].
726) M. 321, 4. 9. [Trigl. 495, 4 🔗, 497, 9 🔗]<w:t>727) The more detailed evidence p. 26 ff, note 92.
252 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 209-210]
Church. 728) Also the result of modern theology, in so far as it substitutes the principle of experience for Scripture, is the same as in the case of papist and reformed enthusiasm. Luther: "They speak such things only to lead us out of the Scriptures and to raise themselves as masters over us, so that we should believe their dream sermons. 729)
728) p. 68 ff.
729) St. L. V, 334 f. Quenstedt (I, 70 sq.) gives a list of enthusiasts down to his time. This list is interesting and instructive because of the inserted remarks. Quenstedt writes: Antithesis: 1. Fanaticorum variorum, statuentium: "Dei et omnium credendorum dogmatum cognitionem non ex Verbo Dei scripto, sed ex propria unicuique peculiariter facta revelatione et congenita luce, ex raptibus, somniis, angelorum colloquiis, ex verbo interno, ex inspiratione (inscription) Patris coelestis, informatione interna Christi essentialiter cum ipsis uniti, ex magisterio Spiritus Sancti intus loquentis et docentis, sapientiam altiorem, quam quae Scripturis sacris continetur, petendam esse." Tali ενϑονοιαομφ correptos fuisse constat permultos fanaticos, antiquos et recentiores; antiquis annumerari possunt Montanistae, Donatistae, Adelphius. [Google] … Verba Hist. Tripart, haec sunt: "Ea tempestate Messalianorum, quos ενχήτας, h. e., orantes, appellant, haeresis est exorta. Vocantur autem et alia appellatione ενϑονοιασταί, i. e., afflati et divini. Hi enim cuiusdam daemonis operationem expectant et hanc Sancti Spiritus praesentiam arbitrantur. Qui vero integro huius rei languore participantur, aversantur operationem manuum velut malam, somnoque semetipsos tradunt et somniorum phantasias prophetias appellant. Huius haereseos fuerunt principes Dadoes et Sabbas et Adelphius, Hermas et Symeones et alii." Recentiores enthusiastae sunt, qui … ex orco prodierunt … sub ductu et auspiciis Thomae Munzeri, seditiosi illius Anabaptistarum antesignani in Thuringia, Casparis a Schwenkfeld in Silesia, Theophrasti Paracelsi in Helvetia, Coppini et Quintini in Piccardia, Valentini Weigelii in Misnia. Hi omnes non tantum scriptum Dei Verbum, sed et revelationes, enthusiasmos, somnia et immediatam Dei vocem audienda et secundum illa regimen ecclesiae instituendum esse contenderunt. [Google] … His adde fratres roseae crucis, novellos prophetas, Jn. Warnerum, Georg. Richardum, Quackeros seu Tremulantes in Anglia, qui etiam raptus divinos et revelationes immediatas somniant. Sic quoque Jean de Labadie publice gloriatus est de revelationibus coelestibus, colloquiis cum beatis sanctis atque beatae virginis Mariae apparitionibus inter orandum sibi factis, ipsiusque asseclae; Deum immediate saepe sine Verbo cum fidelibus agere, asserunt ac proinde, "ad internas Spiritus revelationes confugiendum, seduloque attendendum", monent. Ita et Schurmannia, ενκληρ., p. 80, probare conatur, "praeter Scripturam dari hodieque prophetiam dogmaticam et internas revelationes". 2. papistarum, quos revelationes privatis, v. g., Brigittae, Catharinae Senensi, ... factas inter principia fidei admittere, ostendit Dr. Dannhauerus, Hodom. Spiritus Pap. phantasm. I, p. 61 sq. [Google]... 3. Socinianorum. Sic Faustus Socinus contra Erasmum Ioh,
253 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 210]
The question of what to think of doctrinal revelations outside and beside Scripture is finally decided in Scripture. God has not promised such revelations, but on the contrary has instructed and bound all Christians to the word of the apostles and prophets until the Last Day. With the word of the apostles and prophets, the divine doctrinal revelation is closed. All Christians until the end of time believe through the word of the apostles.730) The Christian church is described as built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.731) The old Lutheran theologians rightly remind us again and again of the axiom that applies to all sources of knowledge besides and apart from Scripture: "New revelations concerning Christian doctrine either coincide with the doctrine present in Scripture, and then they are superfluous; or they contain something different from what stands written in the word of the apostles and prophets, and then they are to be rejected. 732)
The question has been raised, and continues to be raised, whether divine revelations are not also granted to individuals in our time, which relate to external events in the church and the world. It is not contrary to Scripture to admit the possibility and reality of such revelation.733) Scripture
p. 166, censet, Laelium Socinum … interpretationem eorum verborum Christi, loh. 8:52: "Antequam Abraham pater multarum gentium fiat, ego sum lux mundi", precibus multis ab ipso Christo impetrasse, eamque a Deo ipso patefactam esse. Ostorodus, Instit. Germ., c. 1, requirit immediatas revelationes sive internam specialem illuminationem ad intelligendas Scripturas propheticas et maximam partem Apocalypseos Iohannis. Vide Dn. D. Calovium, 11. cc. 4. quorundam Calvinianorum. Sic Andreas Carolstadius revelationes et visiones privatas magnifecit, quem libro "contra coelestes prophetas" b. Lutherus refutavit Tom, III, Ienens.; cf. Sleidanum, 1. III, p. 61; [Google] 1.V, p. 117, ubi inquit: "Is, de quo supra dictum est, Carolstadius, a Luthero dissentiens, Witteberga relicta, clandestinis illis doctoribus, qui visiones et colloquia cum Deo simulabant, ut ante diximus, multo erat familiaris." Et Huld. Zwinglius, qui ex peculiari revelatione sibi innotuisse vult per Spiritum, voculam "est" in verbis coenae positam esse pro "significat". Hinc D. Dannhauerus, Hodom. Spirit. Calv. phantas. I, § 9, p. 59: "Si primordia spectes, enthusiasmo fanatico Carolstadiano et Zwingliano non parum debet Calvinismus, quamvis postea videatur defecisse." [Google]
730) Jn. 17:20.<w:t>731) Eph. 2:20.
732) Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.; Luke 16:29-31.
733) Cf. 11:27-28; 21:10-11. An example of this kind is given in The Apology (M., 270 f. [Trigl. 419, 1-4 🔗]) (Johannes Hilten von Eisenach). It is added: "But what to think of this man's address, we leave to each his own judgment."
254 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 211]
But the acceptance of new doctrinal revelations contradicts Scripture, because the doctrinal revelations are concluded with the word of the apostles and prophets.734)
6. By the demand that the Christian religion be understood historically. This point had already to be touched under the section "Christianity as absolute religion".735) It was then treated in more detail under the section "The closer description of theology conceived as doctrines". It was explained in which sense Christianity could very well be called a historical phenomenon, and in which sense the "historical conception" must be decisively rejected. The latter must happen when the so-called historical conception is used to criticize the Christian doctrine present in Scripture. This happens on the part of newer theologians when they set aside Holy Scriptures as the source and norm of Christian doctrine and want to determine what is unrecognizable as Christian doctrine in the church according to their "historical conception". We already pointed out Richard Grützmacher's correct remark, "that the historical revelation of salvation is contained to us only in the Holy Scriptures which reproduce it." [p. 41] We know of Christ and His doctrine only from Christ's Word, which we possess in the written word of His apostles and prophets, and to which Christ so emphatically points us as the only medium of the knowledge of truth (John 8). Those who abandon this sole source and norm of Christian doctrine and refer us instead to the historical conception of the individual who makes history are asking us to substitute human authority for the divine authority of Holy Scriptures. Modern theologians, who misuse the terminus "history" by urging the "historical Christ" against the Christ in his Word, should not close their minds to the realization that in doing so they are offering the Church a product of the human “I”.
734) Quenstedt says I, 75 about this point: Distinguendum inter revelationes, quae articulum fidei spectant vel impugnant, et quae concernunt statum ecclesiae aut politiae, communem vitam et futuros eventus; illas repudiamus, has vero non quidem ulli cum necessitate credendi obtrudendas, nec tamen temere reiiciendas esse nonnulli statuunt. B. Balduinus in Comm, in 1 Tim. 4, P. I, q. 1, inquit: "Non dubitamus, Deum adhuc nonnullis interdum revelare futura, quae ad statum ecclesiae et reipublicae pertinent, in usum hominum annuncianda." [Google]
735) p. 40 ff.
255 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 211-212]
The real "historical Christ" is the Christ in his word. Luther says in his "Warnungsschrift an die zu Frankfurt am Main":736) “Apart from his word and without his word we know of no Christ, much less of Christ's opinion. For the Christ who pretends to us his opinion without his word, that is the sorrowful devil from hell, who carries Christ's holy name and sells his infernal poison under it.” This is a harsh address that our modern ears can hardly bear. But it tells the full truth especially with regard to these newer theologians who separate the "historical Christ" from the Christ in His Word. Also, it may be recalled here once again a concession on the part of the theologians who consistently hold the historical view of Christianity. This is the concession that their historical conception can never lead to certainty, but necessarily leaves the content of the Christian doctrine in doubt.737) With this concession this kind of theology itself declares that it has no right to exist in the Christian church. The Christian church does not teach doubt, but the certain divine truth. 738)
From the foregoing exposition it is evident that the number of essentially different religious sources of knowledge and norms is reduced to two. Everything that is not merely taken from the Scriptures, in contrast to the Scriptures, originates from the human ego and is adequately designated with the overall name rationalism, regardless of whether it is actually called so or euphemistically paraphrased. He who appeals to natural reason as the source and norm of theology appeals to his natural human ego, because natural reason knows nothing of the Gospel and, when it strays into theology (μετάβαοις εις αλλο γένος), necessarily reduces the Christian religion to moral teaching ("morality," "opinio legis"), because it knows only something of the divine law. Those who call upon enlightened reason, the reborn “I”, etc., likewise call upon natural reason, because enlightened reason—or the new man—has in itself the nature of drawing Christian doctrine merely from Scripture and standardizing it according to Scripture. Those who take the Christian doctrine from the so-called
736) St. L. XVII, 2015.<w:t>737) p. 39 f.
738) Jn. 18:37; 17:17; Jn. 8:32. — 2 Tim. 3:7.
256 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 212-213]
from the whole of Scripture and not from the passages of Scripture in which the individual doctrines are revealed, declares in fact that he is merely presenting a product of his own human thoughts to the church and the world. He who appeals to the Church, Tradition, the Pope, etc., as the source and norm of theology apart from and apart from Scripture, likewise appeals to human authorities, because the Christian Church has no doctrine at all outside and beside Scripture. Whoever appeals to private revelations apart from and beside Scripture in matters of Christian doctrine likewise makes his human self the source and norm of Christian doctrine, because Christian doctrine exists in the word of the apostles and prophets as a completely self-contained quantity to which every man is forbidden to add or from which to detract. Likewise, we have realized that even through the so-called historical conception of Christianity, in place of the certain, infallible Word of Christ, the uncertain, fallible human opinion is elevated to the chair of doctrine in the house of God.
In concluding this section, we should refer to the Smalcald Articles, in which Luther says: "In summary, enthusiasm is in Adam and his children from the beginning to the end of the world, poisoned into them by the old dragon, and is of all heresy… origin, strength, and power." 739) Let him who is predominantly free from this enthusiasm in no way ascribe it to himself, but to the divine work of grace alone. As Luther confesses of himself, God gave him the grace to let all thoughts, which occurred to him without the Word of God, fall out again.740)