15. The authority of scripture and the symbols.
To its symbols the Lutheran Church does not confess doctrines outside and besides Scripture, but precisely those doctrines revealed in Scripture. Because in the course of time attempts were made to spread doctrines contrary to Scripture in the church by calling on Scripture, the church was compelled to state and confess what is Scriptural doctrine in the face of error. These are the confessional writings or symbols of the church. The symbols of the orthodox church can be appropriately called the church's yes to the doctrine of the Scriptures in contrast to the no of the false teachers. That the orthodox church does not place in her symbols a second norm beside the Scriptures, she proves also clearly with the fact that she commits with "quia" to her symbols, that is, she commits her teachers to the doctrines contained in the symbols, not because they stand in the symbols, but because they stand in the Scriptures. As for the commitment with "quatenus," one has to wonder that anyone could seriously advocate this form of commitment. Very correctly Johann Georg Walch remarks
428 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 354-355]
in his introduction to the symbolic books, that with the restriction "quatenus" one could also be committed to the Koran or the Racovian Catechism.1164) If someone wants to justify the quatenus by saying that he does not yet know exactly what is truth according to Scripture and how far the symbolic books express this truth, it must be remembered that such a person should not yet act as a teacher in the Church, but should still be learning. To speak of compulsion of conscience, which is supposed to lie in the obligation to the symbols, already makes no sense because no one is forced into the office of preaching or teacher. As a rule, only such people speak of compulsion of conscience who have gotten away from the Word of God, but are not averse to bringing their own thoughts to man at the expense of a Christian congregation. Walther says:1165) "The fact that the voce is committed by the congregation to the Word of God and the church confession is owed to the congregation as a guarantee that he will not preach his own wisdom, but the pure Christian doctrine publicly and especially, and will not lord it over their faith." It is also obvious that with a quatenus commitment the church declares its own confession to be possibly erroneous and thus cancels its confession as a confession.
Quatenus commitment has occurred in several forms.
1. In the form that the symbols present an "essentially correct" representation of the "main teachings". Here it is left to the arbitrariness of the individual what he understands by "main doctrines", and further, what he understands by "essentially correct" basic doctrines.1166)
2. In the form that the symbols are to be understood "historically". The meaning of this form is that the confession of the symbols does not go to all doctrines present in the symbols, but is to be limited to those doctrines about which the church was compelled to speak by a doctrinal struggle that arose in its midst. Such doctrines present in the Confession and more detailed explanations which go beyond the "historical occasion" are not to be regarded as belonging to the substance of the Confession. It is obvious that with this "historical conception" of the symbols it is up to the subjective discretion of the individual
1164) Introductio in Libros Symb. II, 2, § 11. 1165) Pastorale, p. 52.
1166) Cf. F. Bente, American Lutheranism II, 39 sq., on the "doctrinal basis of the General Synod prior to 1864."
429 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 355-356]
what he regards or does not regard as "historically caused". If we wanted to make the binding nature of a confessional doctrine dependent on the fact that it must be the result of a struggle conducted within the church, we would perhaps be in the position of having to delete the eleventh article of the Formula of Concord as binding. As is well known, the Formula of Concord remarks on this article that "among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession there has not yet occurred any public, vexatious, and extensive discord concerning the eternal election of the children of God". Only because there had been disputes about it in other places and "something of it" had been aroused among the ignorant, so a presentation of this article was indicated, in order to prevent "in the future among our descendants" a disagreement and division in this article."1167) Furthermore, in the "historical" view of the symbols, someone would consider himself justified in putting even the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture on the free list, because this doctrine has not gone through a struggle, nor is there a special article about it in the Confession, but Scripture and the Word of God are "identified" only incidentally, and only incidentally everything in the Confession is based on Scripture as the Word of God. That newer theologians comfort themselves with these facts in their denial of the inspiration of Scripture has already been mentioned earlier.
3. In the form that the symbols were to be accepted provided they were interpreted and understood "according to Scripture" or "rightly". With this limitation, Reformed theologians, Calvin included, subscribed to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.1168) A Lutheran pastoral conference in Germany also made the suggestion to the Missouri Synod fathers that they would like the Lutheran Confession to be "understood according to the guidance of Scripture and the contrast fought each time."1169) This sounds pious and scriptural, but is in fact a decisive rejection of the purpose of our symbols. After all, the purpose of committing to the symbols is not to determine whether someone wants to make an attempt to understand our symbols "according to Scripture," but rather the Lutheran congregations want to determine if the pastor or
1167) M. 704 [Trigl. 1062 🔗].
1168) The evidence in Walther: "Why are the symbolic books of our church to be signed by those who want to become ministers of it, not conditionally, but unconditionally?" St. Louis, Mo., 1858, pp. 6 ff. [1858 Fourth Western District Convention, English translated into "Why Should Our Pastors, Teachers and Professors Subscribe Unconditionally to the Symbolical Writings of Our Church," CTM 18-4 (1947) pp. 241-253; see here for other publications; see also Walther's Pastoraltheologie p. 53]
1169) Der Lutheraner 10, p. 90.
430 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 356]
candidate has already recognized what Scripture doctrine is and therefore also finds in the Lutheran Confession the expression of his own faith and confession.
4. In the form that the symbols are not to be understood according to the "letter" but according to the "spirit". Under this self-imposed condition, the rationalists gladly allowed themselves to be committed to all the symbols of the Lutheran church. By "spirit" they understood their own spirit, which translated the essence of Christianity into a pagan moral teaching.
All the above-mentioned and other quatenus formulas, as I said, defeat the purpose of the symbols, because they leave in doubt what and how much those who are committed to the confession of the congregations accept or do not accept from this confession. The quatenus obligations already, if we consider it rightly, come into opposition to natural respectability and sincerity. incidentally, experience proves that the demand of conditional obligation to the symbols is in the vast majority of cases based on a rejecting position against certain confessional doctrines. This is also true with regard to those Lutherans of our time who advocate a conditional commitment to the confession because they take a doctrinal position that deviates from the confession, e.g. in the doctrine of the church, of the ministry, of chiliasm, even in the doctrine of the Antichrist.
It has been objected against the unconditional commitment to the Confessions that this commitment could not possibly refer to the historical, natural-historical and other purely external remarks that are scattered in the Confessions. Let us not make a clear thing dark! The obligation, as the nature of a churchly confession implies, refers to the doctrines present in the confession. In the Christian church everything depends on the doctrines. — It has been objected against the unconditional obligation that it cannot refer to "all exegetical proofs". This, too, is conceded by those who resolutely advocate an unconditional obligation. We admit that besides the passages of Scripture which prove a doctrine to be a doctrine of Scripture, passages are cited here and there which do not belong in this place but elsewhere. But what we maintain is this, that no doctrine is found in the Confession for which there is not sufficient scriptural evidence.
431 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 357]
We add that the Scriptural proof of the confession can be considered a model of proof from Scripture, since the confession does not bother much with "exegesis" — as exegesis is usually understood today — but, to speak with Luther, lets the nuda Scriptura, without much exposition, come on the scene. More about this in the following section, "Scripture and Exegesis".1170)
1170) On the point of what an unconditional commitment to the Confession does and does not include, we find in Dr. Walther's paper [1858 Western District]: "Why are the symbolic books of our church ... not to be signed conditionally, but unconditionally?" the following exposition: "Since the symbols are confessions of the faith or the doctrine of the church and should and want to be nothing else, nothing else can be understood by an unconditional signature than the solemn explanation given to the church in lieu of an oath by a person entering the church service that he has recognized precisely the doctrinal content of the symbolic books of our church, but this without any exception, as not disputing with the Holy Scriptures in any point (neither in a main nor in a secondary point), but as absolutely agreeing with the same; that he therefore believes in it as in divine truth itself from the heart and thus wants to preach this doctrine unadulterated. Whatever position any doctrine may occupy in the doctrinal system of the symbols and in whatever form it may occur therein, be it as a subject treated ex-expresso or as an incidental remark: the unconditional signature given refers to each of them; none of them is thereby stipulated by the signer. Far from excluding, for example, those doctrines which are used in the symbols only for the proofs contained therein, these are to be regarded as doctrines which are considered by our Church to be absolutely irrevocable doctrinal foundations, and are held by her as such, the joyful acknowledgment of which is therefore presupposed above all others by those who sign the symbols. However, keeping in mind that the symbols are creeds or doctrines, the Church, on the contrary, must necessarily exclude everything that does not concern doctrine from the circle of what the signing of the symbols refers to. For example, just as he who signs the symbols of the Church as his symbols without any condition does not declare them to be a rule and guideline of German or Latin orthography or of a perfect style, neither does his signature refer to any other things that belong to the field of human science. If, for example in the sixth article of the Augsburg Confession a passage from an ancient exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, further in the twentieth article (of the Latin text) a passage from the writing "On the Calling of the Heaths" as a saying of Ambrose, further in the eighteenth article of the same confession a passage from the ancient writing "Hypognostikon" as a saying of Augustine: So, of course, he who subscribes to the Augsburg Confession does not commit himself to consider Ambrose and Augustine
432 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 358]
To designate the relationship between the Holy Scriptures and the symbols of the orthodox Church, the following terms have been used: norma and norma normata, norma primaria and norma secundaria. Both termini express that the symbols are a norm, not in themselves (absolute), but only in certain respects (secundum quid), namely derivatively, because the doctrines which the symbols profess are taken from Scripture."1171) On the practical
as the authors of those writings, because they are quoted in the above-mentioned confession under their names, if it were not known that even the draftsman of this basic confession of ours knew quite well that the cited writings are quoted only under that name, without the authorship of those writings being decisively attributed to them. But just as the servant of the church is not bound by that which falls into the realm of criticism, neither is he bound by anything that belongs to the realm of history in terms of the content of the symbol. — And even more. In a similar relationship stands also the exposition, which is given in the symbol of individual scriptural passages. The Holy Apostle Paul himself states as the only absolutely necessary requirement of an unobjectionable 'prophecy' or exposition of the Scriptures: If anyone has prophecy, let it be analogy of faith', Rom. 12:7. From this Johann Gerhard draws the canon of interpretation: 'Even if we do not reach the actual and special meaning of all passages, it is sufficient that in the exposition of them nothing be brought forward against the analogy of faith'. If, then, an interpreter did not grasp the particular meaning of some passage in the Bible, but took it to mean that his exposition had its basis in other clear passages of Scripture, he might be mistaken in thinking that a certain doctrine was contained in a certain passage, but he was not mistaken in the doctrine. Therefore, even he who subscribes unconditionally to the symbolic books declares only that all the expositions contained in them are 'analogous to faith'. — Since, furthermore, the proof of a doctrine can be imperfect, although not only the doctrine to be proved or the final sentence itself rests on irrefutable, divine grounds, but also the doctrines used for the proof or the upper and lower sentence have their correctness, so also an unconditional signature by no means includes the recognition, that no proof given in the symbolic books for the pure doctrine is capable of perfection, or in other words, that the form, the method and the process of proof are also perfect and therefore every faithful minister is bound to use the method followed in the symbols and no other method. Not otherwise do our fathers judge of an unconditional subscribing to the symbols."
1171) Chemnitz, Loci. Wittenb. 1623, III, 235: Symbola non sunt aliquid extra aut contra Scripturam, sed sunt ipsa medulla Scripturae. Atque ita nos etiam dicimus, nos accipere Sacram Scripturam in eo sensu, qui traditus est in veris et probatis veteris ecclesiae symbolis. [“Symbols are not something outside or against Scripture, but are the very core of Scripture. And so we also say that we accept the Holy Scriptures in the sense that it was handed down in the true and proven symbols of the old church.”]
433 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 358-359]
The expression norma decisionis and norma discretionis (decisive norm - discriminating norm) looks at the practical use or purpose of the symbols, that is, Scripture alone decides whether a doctrine is right or wrong; but from the position that someone takes on the symbols of the Lutheran Church, we know whether the same has recognized and accepts the doctrine of Scripture or not (norma discretionis discernit orthodoxos ab heterodoxis). 1172)
When Mylius († 1607) and Hutter († 1616) and some later Lutheran theologians addressed the inspiration of the Lutheran symbols, they did not want to put the symbols on an equal footing with Scripture, but only to express that a special assistance of the Holy Spirit could be perceived in the composition of the symbols. That Mylius and Hutter only in this sense (sensu latiori) addressed an inspiration of the symbols, Hollaz proves from their own words.1173) Another question is whether Mylius' and Hutter's way of speaking, even with the attached provisos, is to be recommended for imitation. It is surely better to reserve the term ϑεόπνευστος for the writings of the apostles and prophets. Walther adds to the quotation from Hollaz:1174) Schelvigius et I. G. Neumannus itidem libros symbolicos θεόπνευστους vocari posse contendunt, iure dissentientibus Loeschero [“Schelvigius and I. G. Neumann argue that the symbolic books can also be called θεόπνευστους, rightly disagreeing with Loescher”] (vid. Innocent Nachrr. 1707, p. 117; 1710, p. 414. 735), Carpzovio (Isag., p. 3), aliis.1175)
1172) Cf. the compilations on terminology in Walch, Introd. in Libr. Symb., Jena 1732, p. 932 sqq. Baier-Walther I, 139 sqq.
1173) Examen, Proleg. II. qu. 27.1174) Baier-Walther I, 140 sq.
1175) Cf. about the position on the symbols the already quoted writing of Walther: "Answer to the question: Why are the symbolic books of our church not to be signed conditionally but unconditionally by those who want to become servants of it? A paper published by the German Ev.-Lüth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, & a. St. Western District Adopted Paper." St. Louis, Mo., 1858. Of all the writings known to us, this paper of only twenty pages deals most thoroughly with the question in address. On the same subject is referred: "Expert opinion of the Dorpat theological faculty on the questions submitted to it by the German Lutheran Synod of Iowans in North America concerning the church doctrinal consensus," 1866, signed by Professors T. Harnack, Kurtz, von Öttingen, M. von Engelhardt, W. Volck. Cf. also, "Public Colloquy held November 13-19, 1867, between the representatives of the Synod of Missouri, Ohio, &c. St., and the Synod of Iowans." Milwaukee, Wis., 1868. [WorldCat; partial text here; See also this publication of same meeting by Rev. Beyer (Chicago)] An assessment
434 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 359]