3. The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God because they are inspired by God.

3. The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God because they are inspired by God.

The Scriptures not only tell us the fact that it is the Word of God, but also teach very clearly whence this comes, namely, that it was breathed or inspired by God into the men through whom it is written: 2 Tim. 3:16: πάσα γραφή θεόπνευστος. 2 Pet. 1:21: υπό πνεύματος άγιον φερόμενοι έλάλησαν οι άγιοι θεού άνθρωποι. It is in this divine act of inspiration that the Holy Scriptures, though written by men, are the Word of God. In the scriptural statements about inspiration is included the following:

1. Inspiration is not so-called "real inspiration", inspiration of things, nor merely so-called "personal inspiration", inspiration of persons, but verbal inspiration, inspiration of words, because the scripture, of which being inspired is said, does not consist of things or persons, but of written words. As certainly as 2 Tim. 3:16 states the predicate θεόπνευστος from γραφή as the subject, so certainly is verbal inspiration not an "artificial theory" of the old dogmatists, but the simple statement of Holy Scriptures themselves. The same is evident from 2 Petr. 1:21. According to this passage, the holy men of God, under the impulsion of the Holy Spirit (φερόμενοι υπό πνεύματος άγιον), did not merely think or address, but spoke (ελάλησαν), that is, produced words. That the written words of Holy Scriptures are here spoken of is expressly stated in the preceding verse (v. 20), where the words brought forth by the holy men of God are more particularly addressed as προφητεία γραφής, the prophecy of Scripture. And the apostle Paul, according to 1 Cor. 14, did not merely think of the Lord's commandments or make contemplations in his heart about them, but wrote to the Corinthians, ά γράφω νμϊν, scil. are τον κυρίου έντολαί. When Hastings says:754) "Inspiration applies to men, not to written words," this is asserting just the opposite of what Scripture teaches of inspiration. Correctly, however, Hiley according to Gauss:755) "This miraculous

754) Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, by James Hastings, II, 589.

755) Richard W. Hiley, The Inspiration of Scripture, 1885, p. 50.

263 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 218-219]

operation of the Holy Ghost" (namely the divine action of inspiration) "had not the writers themselves for its object, — these were only His instruments, and were soon to pass away; — its objects were the holy books themselves." Whoever rejects the verbal inspiration and wants to accept only a factual or personal inspiration, thereby denies — out of dogmatic bias — the scriptural doctrine of inspiration. To repeat: Scripture says of Scripture, which admittedly consists of words (verba), that it is inspired. Quenstedt:756) Neque enim dicit apostolus, πάντα εν γραφβ sunt θεόπνευστα, sed πάσα γραφή θεόπνευστος, ut ostendat, non modo res scriptas, sed etiam ipsam scriptionem esse θεόπνευστον. Et quidquid de tota Scriptura dicitur, idem etiam de verbis ceu parte Scripturae non postrema necessario intelligendum est. Si enim vel verbulum in Scripturis occurreret non suggestum vel inspiratum divinitus, πάσα γραφή θεόπνευστος dici non posset. [Google]757) We cannot concede that orderly thought underlies the contrast between verbal inspiration and factual or thought inspiration. The thoughts, which are contained in a writing, can only be reached by means of the words used in the scripture. We have the same situation with a writing as with an oral address. In an oral address, we recognize the thoughts of the speaker from the words he uses, insofar as the speaker is able and willing to clothe his thoughts in words. Likewise, we recognize the thoughts of the author of a writing from the words used in his writing, as far as the author is able and willing to express his thoughts in written words. It is the same with regard to God's address and God's writing. Under the condition that God wanted to communicate with men in oral address, men had to pay attention to God's words. Assuming that

756) I, 107.

757) Quite correctly, Meusel states sub "Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures": "More or less, all the variegated recent theories come down to translating the inspiration of Scripture into an illumination of the writers, which is only gradually different from that of any faithful Christian." It had become fashionable for a time to conceive θεόπνευστος, 2 Tim. 3:16, not passively, "breathed by God," but actively, "breathing God." This fashion has again departed. Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 263, note 1: "Today the view of θεόπνευστος as inspired is generally accepted: cf. for instance Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms 1894, p. 135. 21."

264 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 219]

God wanted to communicate with men in written words, we men must pay attention to the written words. In the case of God's Scripture, we have the great advantage that God is quite able and willing to express His thoughts in completely adequate words. That is why Luther so constantly insists that every Christian and every theologian keep to the words of Scripture. To him, then, every passage of Scripture makes the world too narrow.758) Therefore, as we have already heard, he gives the counsel that we cling to the words of Scripture as we cling to a wall or a tree with our hand. But what do we say of Luther! Thus Christ himself has directed us to the words of Scripture. He sets the words of Scripture against the devil three times in temptation and wins the victory. Further, in reference to a single word of Scripture (אֱלֹהִ֣ים , [HEBREW] θεοί, Gods) he tells in John 10:35 that Scripture cannot be broken. So Christ also binds us to his own words when he says in John 8: "If ye abide έν τώ λόγφ τφ έμω, then ... ye shall know the truth." But Christ's words — we must always remember — we have in the word of his apostles, as he expressly says in the high priestly prayer, John 17, that all Christians will believe in him until the Last Day by their, that is, the apostles', word. And the apostle Paul says 1 Tim. 6:3 of all teachers who do not abide in the saving words of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they are darkened and know nothing, but only cause harmful strife and contention in the church. It is so contrary to Scripture, foolish and harmful to deny verbal inspiration.

2. Inspiration does not consist in a mere divine guidance and preservation from error (assistentia, directio, or gubernatio divina), but in the divine presentation or giving of the words of which the Scriptures are composed. The predicate θεόπνευστος, pronounced by Scripture, instructs us quite unmistakably to the effect that Scripture is not merely directed but inspired by God. Within the Lutheran Church, the Helmstedt theologian Georg Calixt († 1656) wanted, with respect to those things which were already known to the sacred writers beforehand and were of lesser importance in general, a mere

758) St. L. XX, 788.

265 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 219-220]

divine guidance and preservation from error. Rightly was Calixt's doctrine rejected by his Lutheran contemporaries as contrary to Scripture, because "guided or directed by God" and "inspired by God" (θεόπνευστος) were quite different terms. And it is practically very important that we should not have substituted for the θεόπνευστος [God-breathed] a mere direction and preservation from error. With this substitution, Scripture would be at best errorless human word, but not the living, majestic word of God, glowing with God's power. God's own Word is Scripture only by inspiration, by being "inspired by God." Quenstedt writes against Calixt and some Romans (Bellarmin): 759) Distinguendum inter assistentiam et directionem divinam nudam, qua tantum cavetur, ne scriptores sacri in loquendo et scribendo a vero aberrent, et inter assistentiam et directionem divinam, quae includit Spiritus Sancti inspirationem et dictamen. Non illa, sed haec Scripturam efficit θεόπνευστον. [Google]

3. Inspiration does not extend only to a part of the Scriptures, for example, only to the main things, the doctrines of faith, and to what was previously unknown to the writers, etc., but to the whole Scriptures. What is a part of Scripture is also inspired by God. This and nothing else comes to expression in the words πάσα γραφή θεόπνευστος. We would do violence to these words of Scripture if we were to include parts of Scripture, such as those parts which present interwoven historical, geographical, physical, etc. We would do violence to these scriptural words if we wanted to exclude parts of the scripture from the inspiration, for example the parts which present interwoven historical, geographical, physical etc. data, or also such parts which report things already known before to the writers. It is by no means a meaningful objection to the inspiration of Scripture when recent theologians remark that Scripture is not a textbook of history or geography or natural science, and therefore it is self-evident that inspiration does not refer to historical, geographical, and natural scientific data.760) Certainly, the proper scopus of Scripture is not to teach these things. The actual scopus of Scripture is given in passages such as John 5:39; 2 Timothy 3:15 ff; 1 John 1:4, etc. We men are to be led by the Scriptures to the knowledge of Christ and thus to salvation. But if by the way, because God has entered into the history of mankind with His Word, in this His Word also

759) I, 98 sq.<w:t xml:space="preserve">760) So also Ihmels, Zentralfragen, p. 72.

266 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 220-221]

historical etc. remarks occur, so these are also inspired and infallible, because they are parts of the scripture. More about this later. Quenstedt does not go beyond 2 Tim. 3:16 when he says:761 Eatione ϑεοπνοής nullum discrimen agnoscimus [inter res Scripturae Sacrae] et divinitatem Scripturae toti uniformiter inesse asserimus. . . . Ees Scripturae sunt in triplici differentia: 1. Quaedam fuerunt sacris scriptoribus naturaliter prorsus incognitae vel propter suam excellentiam, ut fidei mysteria, vel propter nonexistentiam, ut futura contingentia, vel propter absentiam a sensibus, ut cordis secreta. 2. Quaedam naturaliter quidem cognoscibiles fuerunt, sed scriptoribus sacris actu incognitae ob vetustatem et remotionem temporum aut locorum, nisi aliunde forte illis innotuerint sive per famam, sive per traditionem, sive per scripturam aliquam humanam, ut historia diluvii.... 3. Quaedam non tantum cognoscibiles, sed et naturaliter actu ipso cognitae fuerunt publicis Dei notariis per propriam experientiam (historische Forschung des Lukas, Kap. 1, 1 ff.] et sensuum ministerio, ut exitus Israelitarum ex Aegypto et iter in deserto Mosi, historia iudicum Samueli, vita et facta Christi evangelistis et apostolis. Verum non tantum res primi, sed etiam secundi et tertii ordinis in ipso actu scribendi a Spiritu Sancto immediate sunt dictatae et inspiratae sacris amanuensibus, ut his et non aliis circumstantiis, hoc et non alio modo ac ordine, quo scriptae sunt, consignarentur. [Google]

Since, according to the statement of the Scriptures about themselves, the inspiration does not only extend to a part of the Scriptures, but to the whole Scriptures, and the Scriptures do not consist of persons or things, but of words, it is at the same time stated that the Scriptures are completely free of error in all their words and in each of their words. To this, indeed, is the testimony that Christ gives to the Scriptures in John 10:35, when he remarks in reference to the use of a single word (Ps. 82:6: אֱלֹהִ֣ים , [HEBREW] ϑεοί): ου δνναται λνϑήναι ή γραφή. Stöckhardt says very correctly:762) "Where Christ and the apostles refer to the Scriptures, they do not merely introduce general Scriptural ideas, nor do they merely refer to individual passages, but often take their finger to a single word of Scripture and draw from it the proof of their case. In Gal. 3:16 St. Paul writes:

761) 1:98.

762) L. u. W. 32, 255 f., in the detailed article: "What Does Scripture Say of Itself?"

267 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 221-222]

Now the promise is ever made to Abraham and his seed. He does not say, "through the seed," as through many, but as through one, "through your seed," which is Christ.' On the one word: 'through thy seed,' בְזַרְעֲךָ֔, [HEBREW] Gen. 22:18, on the singular of this noun, he takes all weight, and proves from it that Christ was already promised to Abraham, and observes that He, that God thus spoke, that God purposely chose this expression. Matt. 22:43-44 Christ testifies and proves His deity to the Pharisees from the 110th Psalm, namely from the one word My Lord'. Jn. 10:35 all emphasis lies on the expression θεοί, אֱלֹהִ֣ים, [HEBREW], ‘gods’, that title which the 82nd Psalm attaches to the authorities. If this name already belongs to the authorities, how much more to the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world! Christ and the apostles regarded every sentence, every word they found and read in the Scriptures as the Word of God in the true sense of the word. ... The now so much maligned verbal inspiration, this 'little bundle of dogmatists'763) has solid ground in the Scriptures. ... Every word of Scripture is an inviolable sanctuary, an infallible, unchangeable word of God. Scripture expressly confirms this. ... In the Scriptures we encounter the serious warning not to do or add anything to what God has commanded and spoken, Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19. Also every addition is sacrilege, because then God's Word is mixed with man's word. To that warning is added the threat: 'Do nothing to his words, lest he rebuke you!' ... Christ raises his voice and says: "I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For I say unto you: Truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or tittle of the law will pass away, until it is all fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall destroy one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' Matt. 5:17-19; Luke 16:17. We are warned and confess with Paul: ‘I believe everything that stands written in the law and the

763) It is also possible for Luthardt (Comp.10p. 332) to say that the verbal inspiration is not taken from Scripture, but "purely conceptually constructed". Theodor Kaftan (Moderne Theol. d. alten Glaubens 2, p. 109) addresses a "theologumenon" of verbal inspiration.

268 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 222-223]

in the prophets', Acts 24:14." So also Luther confesses:764) "Scripture has never erred," and judges: "Unus apex doctrinae pins valet quam coelum et terra. Ideo in minimo non patimur eam laedi.765) That Luther is thinking here of every tittle of doctrine, insofar as the doctrine is expressed in the certain inviolable words of Scripture, is evident from the context. It is a question of the words of the Lord's Supper to the sacramentarians, and Luther adds, "If they believed that the Word of God was, they would not thus play with the same, but hold it in the highest honor, and ascribe faith to it without all disputation and doubt, and would know that in one Word of God all and all the words of God were one." Quenstedt has used words in regard to the infallibility of Scripture that are heard only with terror in the modern-theological camp. And yet Quenstedt does not go beyond what Scripture says of itself. He writes: 766) Sacra Scriptura canonica originalis est infallibilis veritatis omnisque erroris expers, sive, quod idem est, in Sacra Scriptura canonica nullum est mendacium, nulla falsitas, nullus vel minimus error, sive in rebus, sive in verbis, sed omnia et singula sunt verissima, quaecunque in illa traduntur, sive dogmatica illa sunt, sive moralia, sive historica, chronologica, topographica, onomastica; nullaque ignorantia, incogitantia aut oblivio, nullus memoriae lapsus Spiritus Sancti amanuensibus in consignandis sacris literis tribui potest aut debet. [Google] Likewise Calov says:767) Nullus error, vel in leviculis, nullus memoriae lapsus, nedum mendacium ullum locum habere potest in universa Scriptura Sacra. [“No error, even in the slightest, no lapse of memory, let alone a lie, can have any place in the whole Holy Scripture.”] These words of Quenstedt and Calov, which, as said, do not go beyond the self-testimony of the Scriptures, respectively beyond the testimony of Christ and the apostles, have sounded so strange even to a man like Philippi that he thought he had to express his dissent. Philippi writes in the first edition of his Dogmatics,768) although he wants to stand up for the "word inspiration": "In doing so, one does not have to resist from the outset the recognition of the possibility that some subordinate differences really exist and therefore remain unresolved. For there is here, however, an area of insignificant coincidence, as the similarity of a portrait

764) St. L. XV, 1481.<w:t xml:space="preserve">765) Ad Gal. Erl. II, 341; St. L. IX, 650.

766) Systema I, 112.<w:t xml:space="preserve">767) Systema I, 561.

768) Kirchl. Glaubenslehre 1 I, 208 f.

269 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 223]

is not conditioned by the exactly corresponding length of the nails and hair. How far the inspiration has completely overcome the human weakness also here, seems to us to be able to be determined only on historical way, not dogmatically [is meant: not a priori, on the basis of what the Scripture says about itself, but a posteriori, on the basis of human investigation]. We would therefore at least not like to say a priori with Calov: Nullus error, vel in leviculis, nullus memoriae lapsus, ... ullum locum habere potest in universa Scriptura Sacra. Similarly Julius Africanus already expressed in relation to historical-chronological difficulties in the New Testament: τὸ μέντοι εὐαγγέλιον πάντως άληϑευει." That Philippi was not comfortable with this position on the infallibility of Scripture is evident from several statements. After declaring his dissent with Calov, he adds: "But experience, on the other hand, has shown how often it has proved rash to say, in a concrete case, that this or that difference is to be regarded as badly insoluble." Further, he voices769) a complaint "that the corrosive poison of Christian [Philippi means: of un-Christian] subjectivism has so corroded the spiritual marrow and bone of faith that it seems to us [Philippi includes himself] a small thing to break the objective, infallible, and imperishable word of the Lord soon in this, soon in that point." In particular, Philippi also pronounces the very correct canon: "The truth and certainty of the revelation [of Scripture] is in no way dependent on the success of such attempts [namely: "to harmonize the Bible and natural science"]. For the grass withers, and the flower of the field fades, and with it the science of grass and flowers; but the Word of our God abideth forever. The theology believing in revelation should rejoice much less over the agreement of natural scientific hypotheses, should grieve much less over their contradiction, than it so often happens. The really certain results do not contradict, and the hypotheses are just hypotheses." Not least of all, Philippi's inner embarrassment also arises from the fact that he was prompted to make a senseless distinction that has provoked willful ridicule even among modern theologians. Philippi wanted to distinguish between "word inspiration" and

769) op. cit., p. 197.

270 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 224]

"verbal inspiration," accepting the former and rejecting the latter.770) But no reasonable man has ever taught a "word-inspiration" of the Scriptures, least of all the Lutheran dogmatists. Very correctly Dr. Ebeling remarks: "The Bible does not contain words like a dictionary, but words in a certain context and sense." 771) Philippi, then, in an addendum to the third edition of his Dogmatik, expressly recanted his earlier assumption that an error in Scripture was possible in secondary matters, in the following words: "I now admit myself that, according to my own theory of inspiration, even the possibility of errors in Scripture in secondary matters and insignificant coincidences is to be negated a priori." 772) In the modern-theological camp, Philippi's earlier position has been noted with pleasure. Thus Grimm wrote:773) Philippius, si recte eum intelligimus, genus et formam dictionis, non autem singula vocabula Spiritui Sancto deberi docet [word inspiration, not word inspiration] nec nisi levissimi momenti diversitates in rerum narrationibus concedit. [“Philippi, if we understand him aright, teaches that the kind and form of speech, but not the individual terms, are due to the Holy Spirit [word inspiration, not verbal inspiration], nor does he permit differences of any but the slightest importance in the narratives of things.”] We do not find that one has been just as eager to report Philippi's recantation, even after it had become known. In 1912, Nitzsch-Stephan still addresses Philippi as if he had not changed his original position at all.774)

5. The inspiration of the Scriptures naturally also includes the impulse and command to write (impulsum et mandatum scribendi). If Roman theologians on the one hand want to admit that the evangelists and apostles wrote according to God's will and by God's inspiration (Deo volente et inspirante), but on the other hand claim that a command (mandatum) to write cannot be proven, this is a contradiction in itself.775) Quenstedt rightly says: "They

770) Glaubenslehre, p. 184.191.

771) The Bible God's Word and Faith's Only Source 2, p. 18.

772) Glaubenslehre 3 I, 279.

773) Institutio Theologiae Dogmaticae Evangelicae Historico-critica 2, p. 122.

774) Ev. Dogmatik 3 1912, p. 253.

775) Thus says Bellarmin: Falsum est, Deum mandasse apostolis, ut scriberent. Legimus enim Matt. ult. mandatum, ut praedicarent evangelium; ut autem scriberent, nusquam legimus. Itaque Deus nec mandavit

271 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 225]

[the Roman theologians] engage in antics" (nugantur). If God willed that the evangelists and apostles should write, and at the same time inspired them (inspiravit) what they wrote, then in the act of inspiration they also had the impulse and command to write. The Lutheran theologians therefore say: Ipsa inspiratio, qna suggeruntur, quae in literas referri debeant, importat influxum ad exercitium actus scriptionis.[“ The inspiration itself, which is suggested to be reflected in letters, implies an influence on the exercise of the act of writing.”] 776) Quenstedt: Inspiratio scribendorum et impulsus internus ad scribendum aequipollent. Implicatur contradictio in adiecto, apostolos scripsisse Deo volente et inspirante et suggerente et tamen non praecipiente. [“The inspiration to write and the internal impulse to write are equivalent. A contradiction is implied in the addition, that the apostles wrote to God willing and inspiring and suggesting and yet not commanding.”] 777) — If we ask why the Roman theologians burden themselves with this self-contradiction, the reason is obvious. They bring the sacrificium intellectus in the interest of the pope's decisive authority, ad summam papae potestatem stabiliendam. By claiming that the Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles are inspired, that is, the Word of God, but yet not written by explicit divine command, the value and necessity of Holy Scriptures is to be depressed and, on the other hand, the value and necessity of the "unwritten Word of God," administered, controlled, and made by the Pope under the name of "Tradition" is to be exalted (Luther: the Pope's "Gauckelsack"). According to Roman doctrine, the written Word, the Holy Scriptures, is not a complete rule of faith and life, but requires supplementation by Tradition, which is to be accepted and venerated pari pietatis affectu et reverentia.778) But the pari pietatis affectu et reverentia naturally turns into dispari pietatis affectu et reverentia, and tradition is to be placed above Scripture when the evangelists and apostles wrote without divine command. Then the matter stands thus: Holy Scriptures are not actually a divine institution, because for them the mandatum scribendi is lacking. On the other hand, the Holy Father Pope, as the visible head of the Church appointed by Christ, is an eminently divine institution, and so the Pope, or rather the tradition controlled by him, is entitled to the supreme power in the Church. From this view

expresse, ut scriberent, nec ut non scriberent. Nec tamen negamus, quin Deo volente et inspirante apostoli scripserint, quae scripserunt. [Google] (Quoted in Quenstedt I, 94 from Bellarmin, De V. D., l. 4, e. 3.)

776) Baier-Walther I, 99. <w:t xml:space="preserve">777) Systema I, 96.

778) Trident. Sess. IV, deer, de canon. Script. Cat. Rom., praef. 12.

272 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 225-226]

flow such dicta of Roman theologians in which they claim that Christian doctrine is preserved more purely by Tradition than by Holy Scriptures; the Church can very well exist without Holy Scriptures, but not without Tradition; Christ did not want to make His Church dependent on paper Scriptures and dead parchment, with the enhancement: Scriptures are not at all a reliable guide because of the human weaknesses attached to them, and the Church would have been better served if there had been no Holy Scriptures at all.779) From here the interest becomes clear, why Roman theologians deny the mandatum scribendi and address that the evangelists wrote only "by chance", "by accident", etc.. They are concerned that the I of the Pope be recognized as the decisive authority in the Church. — From here, an analogy between modern theology and the theological principle of Rome is also clearly recognized. Although modern theologians deny the inspiration of Scripture, they are willing to admit that the Word of God is still found in Scripture. Even far-left theologians still speak of the apostles as "standing closer" to divine revelation in their writings than later generations. But what they vigorously protest against, just like Rome, is this, that the divine revelation is to be limited to the "book of revelation" in the Holy Scriptures, to a "paper pope", to a "code of doctrines fallen from heaven". Modern theology also has the same interest as Rome. It wants to get away

779) The documentary evidence in Quenstedt I, 90: 1. Antithesis: 1. Μιαογράφων pontificiorum asserentium, Scripturam Sacram non esse necessariam et posse ecclesiam Scriptura illa carere; ita Gregorius de Valentia in Anal. Fid., p. 388, ubi ait, "doctrinam coelestem purius conservari posse per traditionem quam per Scripturam". Bellarminus, 1. IV, De V. Dei, c. 4, contendit, "ecclesiam sine Scriptura consistere posse, sine traditione non posse". Costerus asserit, "Christ nec ecclesiam suam a chartaceis Scripturis pendere nec membranis mysteria sua committere voluisse". Petrus a Soto: "Illud statuatur ut certissimum, quod hoc scribendi verba divina atque revelationes consilium ob imperfectionem et infirmitatem humanam est excogitatum a Deo, atque infirmioribus et imperfectioribus magis expediens; sanctioribus vero et purioribus aut minus aut nullo modo necessarium." Huc spectat vox impia illa cardinalis cuiusdam, relata Tileno, P. 1, disp. 2, th. 35: "Melius consultum fuisse ecclesiae, si nulla unquam ex-titisset Scriptura." [Google] (L. c., q. 1, f. 90.)

273 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 226-227]

from Scripture as the only source and norm of theology and, in place of Scripture, indeed not the Pope's ego, but rather the "experience" or — what is the same thing — "the pious self-consciousness", the ego of the theologizing subject, make it the deciding factor in the Christian church instead of Scripture. When Theodor Kaftan says:780) "The modern theology that I represent does not bend under any only external authority," he understands by the external authority, under which he does not want to bend, the Holy Scriptures, the written word of the apostles and prophets. And when he adds that he bows to "God's Word" "as to an authority which has asserted itself and which holds itself, in its own strength," the opinion is that he wants to allow only so much to be valid from Scripture as has shown itself to be truth before the judgment seat of his "experience" or his "pious self-consciousness." Ihmels means the same,781) when he calls it a "fatal mistake" that the first church, the church of the Reformation, and the old dogmatists retreated only to Scripture as the source and norm of Christian doctrine, and when, on the other hand, he sees in Schleiermacher's theology and especially in Erlangen's theology a "tremendous progress" in the right trend, because through this theology the experience or the Christian I has come to the fore. Result: Rome is concerned with the I of the pope, modern theology is concerned with the I of the theologizing individual.

The whole debate is closed by the fact that, according to the testimony of Scripture, the Christian Church is not even in the least part built on the pious ego, be it of the Pope, be it of other theologizing individuals, but only on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, that is, on the Word of Scripture, until the Last Day. We already saw abundantly that Christ refers His Church and all the world to the Word of His Apostles, that the Apostles refer to all pseudo sources of knowledge and pseudo norms precisely to their written Word, that the Apostles were conscious of teaching Christ's Word in full, and therefore call upon Christians to deny church fellowship to all those

780) Modern Theology of the Old Faith2 , p. 112 f.

781) Central Issues 2, p. 56 ff.

274 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 227-228]

who deviate from their, the apostles', doctrines. We have already seen that the apostles claim not only temporary and local, but permanent validity for what they wrote, even if it was done "by accident" (1 Cor. 1:11).782) This is also the point Luther makes to his Roman opponent, who wanted to grant only temporary and local validity to the Lord's Supper sub utraque specie. He expresses on this occasion in the most decisive way that Paul's letters bind all Christians at all times and in all places. He writes:783) Quid magis ridiculum et fraterno isto capite 784) dignius dici potuit, quam apostolum particulari ecclesiae, scil. Corinthiorum, ista scripsisse et permisisse (namely the Lord's Supper under both forms), non autem universali? Unde haec probat? Ex solito penu, nempe proprio et impio capite. … Si demus unam epistolam aliquam Pauli aut unum alicuius locum non ad universalem ecclesiam pertinere, iam evacuata est tota Pauli auctoritas. Corinthii enim dicent, ea, quae de fide ad Romanos docet, non ad se pertinere. Quid blasphemius et insanius hac insania fingi possit? Absit, absit, ut ullus apex in toto Paulo sit, quem non debeat imitari et servare tota universalis ecclesia. Non sic senserunt Patres usque in haec tempora periculosa, in quibus praedixit Paulus futuros esse blasphemos et caecos et insensatos, quorum unus hic frater vel primus est. [Google]785)

782) S. 148.

783) De Captivitate Babylonica. Opp. v. a. V, 26 sq.; St. L. XIX, 19 f.

784) The Italian monk of Cremona, whose name is unknown, is meant, who had written a book in which he wanted to lead Luther back to the Roman church. Cf. Luther's description of this monk, loc. cit. p. 21.

785) Luther's absit, absit, etc. does not contradict 1 Cor. 7:26, where Paul does not give a commandment at all (v. 25), but only gives the counsel that virgins remain unmarried "for the sake of the present need”. Against the sophistry of papist theologians, that the apostles wrote from "accidental cause" (ex occasione accidentaria, fortuito), thus not in divine order and therefore not binding for all Christians, Quenstedt says: Scripserunt quandoque apostoli ex occasione, sed non fortuita, sed a Deo subministrata. Deus omnia ita direxit, ut completum perfectumque canonem fidei et vitae haberemus, Scripturas scil, propheticas et apostolicas. [“Sometimes the apostles wrote from an opportunity, but not accidental, but provided by God. God directed everything in such a way that we should have a complete and perfect canon of faith and life, namely the Scriptures, prophetic and apostolic.”] Quenstedt quotes from Tertullian Contra Marcionem, 1. 5: Ad omnes apostoli scripserunt, dum ad quosdam, [“The apostles wrote to all, while to some”] and from (Cyrill, Proleg. in Ioh.: Hac re commotus Iohannes par esse putavit, tam praesentibus quam futuris huius evangelii conscriptione consulere. [“Moved by this matter, John thought it appropriate to consult both the present and the future about the writing of this gospel.”]

275 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. 228-229]