14. The use of scripture to decide doctrinal disputes.
As is well known, the Roman Church maintains that Holy Scriptures are incapable of deciding doctrinal disputes. Therefore, in order to establish and maintain doctrinal unity, it is necessary for the Church to have a visible head (caput visibile) or a visible representative of Christ (vicarium Christi), namely the Pope, who, by virtue of his Personal Authority, establishes the meaning of Scripture. Modern theology, too, through its denial of the infallible divine authority of Scripture, has come to abandon in principle the position of the Christian Church, according to which Scripture is iudex controversiarum. Representatives of modern theology declare with Zöckler: "As far as the handling of the Bible as normative and judicial authority in doctrinal controversies is concerned", "the possibility of only a partial and incomplete settlement of the dispute in question by the authority of Scripture must not infrequently be conceded".1149) And from Volck of Dorpat we heard "that the interrogation of Scripture is not such an easy matter."1150)
On the other hand, we know from Scripture itself that both the teachers of the Church and all Christians in particular can and should use Scripture as iudex controversiarum. We have Christ's normative example for this. Christ, when tempted by the devil to believe falsely, overcame the devil's attack by saying, "It is written," and by citing the passages of Scripture pertaining to the matter in dispute, and retained the field. If we look first at the teachers of the church, it belongs to their office that they "shut up" the impudent and useless babblers, οϋς δει επιστομίζειν.1151) How? Of course, not with fisticuffs or with weapons that are in the same carnal field,"1152) but in such a way that they "hold whether the word that is certain and can teach" (ἀντέχεοϑαι τον κατά την διδαχήν πιοτού λόγου),1153) or — which is the same thing — that they "hold to the example of the wholesome words" (νποτύπωσιν εχειν ΰγιαινόντων λόγων) which they heard and learned from the apostles.1154) Thus, in the hand of all teachers who are teachable (διδακτικοί), the Holy Scriptures are an infallible arbiter
1149) Handbook2 III, 151. <w:t>1150) ibid. I, 746.
1151) Tit. 1:10-11.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1152) 2 Cor. 10:3 ff.
1153) Tit. 1:9.<w:t>1154) 2 Tim. 1:13.
423 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 350-351]
between truth and error. Neither does Scripture know anything of the Roman position that Scripture is of no use at all as a judge in doctrine, nor does it know anything of the modern-theological assertion that Scripture "not infrequently" fails as a norm of doctrine. And as for Christians in general, not only is the ability to judge in matters of Christian doctrine ascribed to them in Scripture,1155) but it is expressly made their duty to distinguish between true and false prophets1156) and also to supervise the ministry of their own teachers.1157) According to what standard? Not according to their own thoughts, of course. For like all teachers, all Christians are bound to Jn. 8:31-32: " If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth," and to 1 Petr. 4:11: "If any man speak, that he speak it as the Word of God." Thus it is a truth unshakably established from Scripture that all and individual Christians can and should also use Scripture as norma doctrinae and as iudex controversiarum. Luther:1158) "To know and to judge about doctrines belongs before all and every Christian, and that in such a way that he is cursed who offends such right by one little bit."
For the decision of doctrinal disputes, of course, as our ancient theologians constantly remind us, two things are necessary: 1. The point in dispute (status controversiae) must be precisely determined, 2. The precisely determined point in dispute must be placed in the light of the scriptural passages that deal with the point in dispute. Then Scripture decides the dispute with the greatest clarity and certainty. Not, of course, in such a way as outwardly to compel the acceptance of its decision, and outwardly to shut the mouth of the objector, but certainly in such a way as inwardly to convince and win approval, as happened with the servants of the high counsel,1159) or in such a way as to put him who holds his objection in danger of becoming an αντοκατάκραος.1160) Baier aptly describes the state of affairs thus:1161) Quamvis Scriptura Sacra vi externa non cogat homines in sua decisione acquiescere quoad λόγον τον εξω, seu ne
1155) Jn. 6:45.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1156) Matt. 7:15; Rom. 16:17.
1157) Col. 4:17.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1158) St. L. XIX, 341.
1159) Jn. 7:46.<w:t>1160) Tit. 3:10-11.
1161) Baier-Walther 1, 186.
424 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 351]
quid actu externo obloquantur, tamen quando aperta est sententia Scripturae tamquam vocis divinae, certum est animos hominum quoad λόγον τον εσω convinci, ut, nisi reclamante conscientia, nihil excipere possint. [Google] Hence, then, it is said of Scripture that it speaks, bears witness, accuses, judges, resolves under sin, closes its mouth, etc.1162) To the objection of the papists that Scripture is a "dumb book" that cannot address, judge and decide. The old theologians used to answer: "Scripture is not silent except in the papacy, where its mouth is forbidden" (Scriptura Sacra non muta nisi in. papatu, ubi prohibetur loqui). Moreover, they point out to the Roman theologians, who wanted to keep the Scriptures as the Word of God, that it is really not evident why a decision cannot be given by the words of the Scriptures just as much as by the words or letters of the Pope, unless one seriously wants to assume that the Scriptures as "God's letter" to mankind are less capable than the letters of the Pope. With particular diligence and emphasis, the Roman theologians defended themselves against the doctrine of the Scriptures, that also the "laity" could and should judge in matters of doctrine on the basis of the Scriptures. They referred to passages of Scripture in which Christians are figuratively called "sheep," such as John 10:16: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold." But Jn. 21:16-17 seemed to be especially conclusive to them, where Christ speaks to Peter: "Feed my sheep!" To this our theologians replied: Christians are indeed compared to sheep in Scripture, but not to stupid sheep, but to wise ones who know exactly how to distinguish Christ's voice from the voice of the stranger and the pseudo-shepherd. Jn. 10:4-5: "When he [the right shepherd] has left out his sheep, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice (οΐ'όασιν την φωνήν αντον). But a stranger they do not follow, but flee from him (φενξονται απ' αντον), for they do not know the stranger's voice."
1162) Jn. 19:24; Rom. 3:21; Jn. 5:45; 12:48; Gal. 2:22; Rom. 3:19. Holtzmann, Neutestamentl. Theologie II, 297, correctly remarks with regard to the apostle Paul that he obviously "personifies" the scripture and lets it speak "directly to the Christian presence". Holtzmann, of course, attributes this to "the Jewish view" of the apostle, "according to which the theopneusty is directly ascribed to the Scriptures themselves."
425 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 351-352]
V. 27: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (άκολονϑοϋσίν μοί).1163)
1163) Gerhard, Loci, L. De Ministerio Eccles., § 88: Ex ovibus non facimus pastores, sed iubemus, ut sint ac maneant oves; interim nolumus eas esse brutas oves, quae non possint nec debeant discernere inter pastores et lupos. [Google] Gerhard refutes the main arguments with which Rome denies to the "laity" the ability and right to judge the doctrines according to Scripture. We place the longer passage here, as it is also reported in Baier-Walther I, 188 sq.: Regerit Bellarminus: "Populus, cum sit rudis, non potest aliter iudicare de doctrina pastoris quam ex collatione cum doctrina praedecessorum et ordinariorum pastorum." Resp,: Hoc falsum esse, ostendit exemplum Beroensium, qui quotidie scrutabantur Scripturas, sedulo inquirentes, an haec ita se haberent, quae a Paulo et Barnaba proferebantur, Act. 17:11; regulam iudicii statuebant non doctrinam ordinariorum pastorum, sed Scripturas Sacras, quo nomine a Spiritu Sancto commendantur. Ruditas illa populi, de qua Bellarminus loquitur, in papatu originem ducit ex prohibitione legendi Scripturam Sacram, pro quo sacrilegio gravem olim reddent rationem illius auctores. Invertimus autem Bellarmini argumentum: Si ruditas populi non obstat, quominus possit doctrinam pastorum conferre cum doctrina praedecessorum vel ordinariorum pastorum, utique etiam non obstabit, quominus doctrinam pastorum conferre possit cum doctrina Christi, prophetarum et apostolorum, in Scripturis proposita, et iuxta hanc normam verum prophetam a falso discernere. [Google] Sed verum prius; ergo et posterius. Connexio maioris probatur, quia Christus, prophetae et apostoli tam perspicue docere possunt et vere etiam tam perspicue docuerunt, quam ordinarii pastores. Cum Christus, prophetae et apostoli docendi ministerio in his terris fungerentur, non eruditis solum, sed etiam rudi populo praedicarunt, atque eo quidem modo, ut doctrinam ipsorum intelligere possent; quomodo igitur scripta prophetarum et apostolorum adeo essent'obscura et perplexa, ut ex illis de doctrina rudis populus iudicare omnino nequeat? Certe non alia, sed eadem scripserunt prophetae et apostoli, quae viva voce praedicarunt. — "At," inquit Bellarminus, "si populus per se posset iudicare de doctrina pastoris, non egeret praedicatoribus." Resp.: Quae vero in hac illatione συνάφεια? Utrumque a Deo mandatum: ut scilicet populus iudicet de doctrina pastoris, quod ipse Bellarminus antea disertis verbis illi concessit, et ut nihilominus sint certi et ordinarii in ecclesia ministri, "non enim omnes doctores," 1 Cor. 12:29; Eph. 4:11. [Google] Aliud est, inquirere in veritatem doctrinae et haereses ab orthodoxia, pseudoprophetas a veris doctoribus discernere, quae vocatio generalis est, ad omnes Christianos pertinens; aliud, publice in ecclesia docere, quae est vocatio specialis. Ex ovibus non facimus pastores, sed iubemus, ut sint ac maneant oves; interim nolumus eas esse brutas oves, quae non possint nec debeant discernere inter pastores et lupos. Pontificii ex auditoribus suis faciunt brutas oves, quae sine ulla discretione sequantur pastorem, si vel maxime ad noxia deducat pascua vel etiam in lupum vertatur; faciunt ex auditoribus psittacos a nutu praelatorum pendentes, ex praelatis
426 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 352-353]
If it stands clear from Scripture that all disputes in matters of Christian doctrine can and should be decided by Scripture, then the question arises why disputations and colloquia have in most cases been without result. The answer has already been hinted at in a few words at the beginning of this section. If the status controversiae is either not established at all or — which happens even more often — is abandoned after it has been established, the participants keep talking about different things, and agreement is impossible. Likewise, if the disputed point is not brought into the light of Holy Scriptures at all, there is a futile effort to reach agreement. This happens when "exposition" takes the place of the words of Scripture themselves, or when Scripture texts are cited,
angelos, qui plane sint infallibiles et άννπsvϑvvoi. ... Ratio, quam Bellarminus addit, est plane antichristiana: "Cum pastor ordinarius (inquit) et aliquis alius, qui praedicat, non vocatus, contraria docent, debet omnino populus pastorem suum potius sequi quam illumalterum, qui non est pastor, etiamsi forte contingeret, ut pastor erraret." At falsum est, quod pastorem ordinarium etiam errantem populus sequi debeat; hoc enim nihil aliud est, quam iubere, ut oves etiam ad noxia pascua suum sequantur pastorem, ut tenebras Christiani praeferant luci, errores veritati, humanas constitutiones divinae auctoritati. [Google] Subiicit quidem Bellarminus, "non esse credibile, Deum esse permissurum, ut ordinarius pastor ita erret, ut decipiat simplicem populum"; sed frustra disputatur, an fieri possit, de quo manifeste constat, quod factum sit; ordinarios pastores saepius errasse et simplicem populum decepisse, absque insigni impudentia negari nequit. Hic ergo urgemus Bellarminum et quaerimus, an ordinarios pastores etiam errantes populus sequi debeat. Si affirmate responderet, manifestum faciet, se operam venalem locasse ei, qui in "Si papa" dist. 40., sic rugit: "Si papa, suae et fraternae salutis immemor, negligens deprehenditur, inutilis et remissus in operibus suis et insuper a bono taciturnus, quod magis officit sibi, et nihilominus omnibus, innumerabiles populos catervatim secum ducat, primo mancipio gehennae, cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturos: huius culpas istic redarguere praesumat mortalium nullus; quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus, a nemine est iudicandus." [Google] Here belong also the well-known words of Luther (St. L. X, 1542 f.): "All the warning that St. Paul does Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 10:15; Gal. 3:4. 5; Col. 2:8 and all the sayings of the prophets, where they teach to avoid the doctrines of men, do nothing else but take the right and authority to judge all doctrines from the teachers and impose them on the hearers with a serious commandment for the loss of souls, so that they not only have the right and authority to judge everything that is preached, but are guilty of judging by the disgrace of divine majesty. That we may see by this how the tyrants have dealt so unchristianly with us, in that they have taken from us such right and commandment, and given it to themselves."
427 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 353-354]
but those that deal with a different doctrine. The latter happened and happens especially often. Thus it was and is demanded that the doctrine of the Lord's Supper should not be taken from the words of the Lord's Supper but from John 6, that the doctrine of election to salvation should not be decided from the scriptural words dealing with election but from John 3:16, and so on. Modern theology even demands that the individual doctrines are to be drawn from the "whole of Scripture". This nonsensical and impossible method, recommended and adopted by the "reformer of the nineteenth century" (Schleiermacher), is called the "deeper view of Scripture," while at the same time the old theologians are said to have cut Scripture into matters with their demand that every doctrine be taken from the passages of Scripture in which it is revealed. It is obvious that in these cases Scripture does not speak at all, but is bound by a principle outside of Scripture, just as in the papacy. Any agreement in these and all similar cases is naturally excluded. This subject is to be taken up again under the section "Scripture and Exegesis".