Angels.
(De angelis.)
The fact that modern theology has moved from the Scriptures into the ego of the theologizing subject is also clearly evident in its position on the Scriptural doctrine of angels. It takes a more or less radical position against the Christian doctrine of angels, depending on the consistency with which it allows the ego point of view to come into its own. The position of the liberal wing can be summarized as follows: That there are good angels is possible, but cannot be proven. That there are good angels is possible, but cannot be proven. In any case, the proof
1497) Ex. 34:28.
1498) Cf. here what was said above (p. 553 ff.) in the doctrine of God under "omniscience" about the infallible divine foreknowledge of all things and the right position to this fact. Cf. furthermore, in the doctrine of eternal election, the section: "The right consideration of eternal election" (Vol. III, p. 538 ff.). It may be pointed out here the diametrical contrast that exists between Luther and Calvin, although both speak of a "hidden" and "revealed" God. This contrast is explained in detail in vol. II, p. 46 ff.
601 > Angels [English ed. 497]
for a personal devil is missing.1499) The more positive trend does not want "the idea of angels to be completely banished from the language of the religious view", but claims that the scriptural statements about angels are not sufficient for a "doctrine" of angels. To a "dogmatic" doctrine of the angels belongs the proof of an "inwardly necessary connection" with the "salvation experience" of the individual doing theology. Kirn says:1500) "Since an inwardly necessary connection of the Christian truth of salvation and salvation experience does not exist, dogmatics has no special doctrine of angels to establish." Yet there are recent theologians who advocate the assumption of both good and evil angels.1501) It must be remembered, however, that the Christian
1499) In Nitzsch-Stephan there is (p. 441 ff.) first a short correct representation of the "older Lutheran doctrine" of the angels. Then, however, under "Test and Result" it is said: "The reality of the angels cannot be declared impossible on the one hand, but on the other hand it cannot be proved either." Concerning the devil, it says p. 364: "The whole theory of the devil as the first fallen angel is only a dogmatic hypothesis." Karl Hase, as an aesthetic rationalist, relegates the doctrine of angels to the realm of poetry, superstition, and church art. (Ev. Dogmatik 4, p. 192 f.)
1500) Ev. Dogmatik 3, p. 72.
1501) Also in Nitzsch-Stephan especially Kähler and Schlatter are quoted. p. 445: "Today's conservative dogmatics speaks little of the angels, although it holds their existence out of faithfulness against the Scriptures. ... Kähler thinks that with the confidence in the independence of one's own personal existence from the sensuous breath of life, at the same time the view of the supernatural kingdom of personal creatures opens up, whose existence and influence in the history of mankind holds the balance to that preponderance of material existence [is somewhat darkly expressed]; they serve God in his providence and revelation, but not as mediators of the religious relationship of men from God [very correct], but only as means of intercourse with men in the historical revelation. (Lehre, p. 267 f.) Schlatter ... the idea of angels clarifies the glory of God; God must be greater than the world we can experience. The remembrance of this urges us to suppose an unfolding of creative power not limited out of nature and man [the reasoning is too subjective], and the statement of Scripture entitles us to go beyond the thought of a mere possibility'. 'The mystery is near to us.' (Dogma, p. 92 f.) p. 361: "Conservative theology still carries forward a doctrine of Satan. It does so out of loyalty to Jesus as the teacher, 'who experiences in a measure different from ours the reality of the powers beyond' (Schlatter, Dogma, p. 279), and whose self-statements are indissolubly linked with propositions about the prince of this world, his angels, and their seductive activity (Kähler, Lehre, p. 308); moreover, in the conviction that the origin of human sin becomes comprehensible only through the assumption of a satanic
602 > Angels [English ed. 498]
doctrine of angels can only be known and taught from the Scriptures as God's infallible Word. We deceive ourselves if we think that we can develop the Christian doctrine of angels completely or partly with "inner necessity" from our ego, even apart from the revelation in the Scriptures.
The newer theologians, who reject a "dogmatic" doctrine of the angels, justify this, as said, with the remark that the doctrine of angels does not occupy a central position within the Christian revelation of salvation. Thus Kirn says:1502) "We cannot reckon the angel doctrine to be part of the essential content of the revelation of salvation itself and have to leave its use to religious tact." It has already been pointed out under the section "Non-Fundamental Doctrines" (p. 102 f.) that and why the doctrine of angels is admittedly not to be classified as a fundamental article. Faith, which places one in the community of God's grace, has as its object not the existence of angels and their ministries, but Christ crucified in his satisfactio vicaria, 1 Cor. 2:2; 15:3. At all times men have become Christians without having heard or known that angels exist. But if a man has become a Christian and now reads the Bible, he will find, from Genesis to the Revelation of John, besides the central doctrine of Christ, the Savior of sinners, also the doctrine of angels. And it must be with great inconsistency that he holds the doctrine of Christ, but rejects the doctrine of the angels as untrustworthy. The fact that modern theologians think that they can easily bind the denial of the Christian doctrine of angels with the "Christian experience of salvation" is mostly due to the fact that they have a wrong concept of the Christian experience of salvation. To all those who deny the satisfactio Christi vicaria, the Christian salvation experience is consequently terra incognita.
background." — All the more recent theologians who want to convert the personal devil into the "idea" of evil (rationalists, Schleiermacher, also Kirn), Strauß refuted from his standpoint of complete unbelief with these words (quoted in Luthardt, Comp. 10, p. 155): "The demons are to be understood as necessary components of the whole worldview of Jesus and the apostles"; "if Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, he did not need to come if there was no devil; if there is a devil, but only as a personification of the evil principle, — well, a Christ as an impersonal idea is also sufficient".
1502) op. cit., p. 73.
603 > Angels [English ed. 498-499]