IS.Chapter10.docx

CHAPTER TEN CONCLUSION 1. THE DANGER OF NEGLECTING THE DOGMATICIANS’ EXEGETICAL WORKS IT is surprising how many confused ideas have been circulated concerning the old Lutheran doctrine of Scripture by scholars who are otherwise eminently discerning and competent. Two mistakes have been made generall...

CHAPTER TEN CONCLUSION 1. THE DANGER OF NEGLECTING THE DOGMATICIANS’ EXEGETICAL WORKS IT is surprising how many confused ideas have been circulated concerning the old Lutheran doctrine of Scripture by scholars who are otherwise eminently discerning and competent. Two mistakes have been made generally by these scholars in their manner of investigation, mistakes which are certainly unintentional and yet are fundamental and far-reaching in scope. First, the Lutheran theologians who represent the prevailing orthodoxy of the seventeenth century have been studied as dogmaticians and nothing more: they have been portrayed as hidebound systematists who were not interested in Biblical theology and sound Scriptural exegesis. Consequently their exegetical works have been quite neglected. Now it is an undeniable fact that these theologians, conservative to the point of zealotry in some cases and irrevocably committed to their theological confessional heritage, were concerned primarily with polemics and dogmatics. They would not have been children of their age had these not been their first concern. But this is all the more reason why their exegetical works, which in many cases are their finest writings, should be studied. The influence of polemical motives upon their dogmatical works cannot be emphasized too strongly. A spirit of polemics coloured and dominated practically all their doctrinal discussion, which meant that their doctrinal writings were necessarily unbalanced. A classical example of this fact is their treatment of Scripture. How different their whole presentation of this subject would have been had there been no Rathmann or no Jesuit order! Many aspects of this doctrine—for instance, their views on revelation, the efficacy and the uniqueness of the Word—cannot be known from their writings in the field of systematic theology; they had no occasion to speak their mind in these matters. Only when we repair to their exegetical writings, which usually offer a far more dispassionate and objective presentation of their theology, do we get a glimpse of their views in these matters, but even then often only a glimpse. It is, however, untrue to say that they were not concerned with Biblical exegesis. The Lutheran teachers of the seventeenth century occupied themselves to no small degree with exegetical study. Consider the lengthy commentaries of Sebastian Schmidt on all the books of the Old Testament. Consider Balduin’s enormous Commentarius in Omnes Epistolas Beati Apostoli Pauli. Consider the four immense folio volumes comprising Calov’s Biblia Illustrata, which may correctly be called his opus magnum and is far more exact and carefully written than his Systema, which, except for the first volume, seems to have been produced in a great hurry. Consider Gerhard’s many exegetical works on practically all the books of the New Testament, and especially his continuation of Chemnitz’ Harmonia Quatuor Evangelistarum. And consider Aegidius Hunnius, who, in spite of the violent controversies in which he was engaged, still found time to write commentaries on two of the Gospels and most of the epistles of the New Testament. Such exegetical achievements represent an almost unbelievable amount of labour, although they too become excessively controversial at times. Furthermore, they contain much independent and original investigation and usually reveal a higher level of scholarship than the dogmatical works of these men—another reason why they should be studied in connection with their doctrine of Scripture. Their exegetical works contain much which cannot be found in any of their other writings. 2. THE DANGER OF STUDYING THE DOGMATICIANS’ THEOLOGY PIECEMEAL Secondly, the theology of the orthodox dogmaticians has often been studied piecemeal or locally; this is perhaps justified, but is at all times unwise when inquiring into the theology of those who used a local method of presentation. For instance, the relevance of the Scripture principle to the inspiration of Scripture is often completely overlooked. Their doctrine of inspiration is studied as if detached from other aspects of their doctrine of the Word, as a thing in itself. Such an atomistic method of research may well result in a grotesque exaggeration of this doctrine. The same result may occur when scholars confine their investigation to the sections of their works dealing specifically with Scripture. Restricting his study in this way, how could Joseph Sittler come to any other conclusion than that their doctrine of the Word was ‘static’? A study of Scripture cannot be divorced from the doctrine of grace. The very purpose of the divine origin of Scripture, of its clarity, its perfection, its authority, is soteriological. The Word of God must be viewed therefore in its proper soteriological context, in the context of sola gratia and gratia universalis—and it must be done seriously. 3. MECHANICAL INSPIRATION AND ACCOMMODATION As a result of these two mistakes of later scholars serious misrepresentations of the old Lutheran doctrine of Scripture have been made, and false estimations of the old Lutheran position naturally follow. It is particularly in reference to inspiration, to the relation between the Spirit and the writers of Scripture, that the orthodox Lutheran position has been singled out for attack and quite drastically distorted by the majority of scholars and theologians of the last century. In the first place, the importance of this doctrine which the earlier dogmaticians never discussed specifically and which the orthodox teachers after Calixt treat more or less briefly is over-emphasized in the extreme. In the second place, as I have already mentioned, verbal inspiration has been falsely depicted as ‘mechanical inspiration.’ as a ‘dictation theory’ of inspiration. That the dictatio which the dogmaticians speak of so often, like suggestion denotes no more than a divine supplying or furnishing of words in Scripture, that this dictatio does not indicate the manner in which the impartation of the words of Scripture took place, that no attempt is made by any of the dogmaticians to explain the how of the suggestio verborum— these highly significant facts are very seldom taken into consideration by their critics. The question to be answered in this connection is simply this: does a suggestio verborum, a divine communication of the very words of Scripture, obviate all requirement for and significance of a doctrine of accommodation whereby God adapted Himself and His message to man, to the normal speech of ordinary men, to their intellect, their emotions and their natural endowments? The answer of the orthodox dogmaticians is an unqualified ‘no.’ They confess both verbal inspiration and accommodation.1 Those who have made studies of their position on inspiration have, by ignoring their doctrine of accommodation, too often interpreted their concept of the relation between the Spirit and the writers as mechanistic and coercive. It is, I believe, the consistent monergism of their doctrine of inspiration which has confused Cremer, Luthardt, Sasse and so many others and blinded them to the true facts of the case. These men have made the mistake of drawing conclusions from the teachings of the dogmaticians, conclusions which seem reasonable and necessary to them, but which would never have been granted by the dogmaticians themselves. The orthodox Lutheran theologians teach on the one hand that Scripture is God’s book, that it was verbally dictated and inspired by Him and that no human co-operation concurred efficienter in bringing it about. On the other hand they teach with equal clarity that the amanuenses retained their individual styles, that they wrote consciously, willingly, spontaneously and from experience and conviction, that psychologically and subjectively (materialiter & subjective) they co-operated in writing Scripture. If these two parallel thoughts seem paradoxical, if they seem to contradict each other, the orthodox teachers make no effort to harmonize them. Such a lacuna in their theology will of course trouble those who study them, but the minute the dogmaticians are represented as crossing this lacuna they are certain to be misrepresented. This habit of blandly refraining from drawing what seem to be the logical consequences of their tenets was not uncommon among the Lutheran theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; in fact, it was a principle with them. Analogous to their position concerning inspiration was their doctrine of conversion. They taught in accordance with the second article of the Formula of Concord that conversion was monergistic, that it was effected by the grace of God alone, that the human will was completely passive in conversion,1 and yet they did not thereby conclude that man as the subjectum convertendi was a mere robot or that God converted man against his will or that he did not in the fullest sense experience his conversion.2 Lacunae of this nature are common in the theology of all the dogmaticians and the dogmaticians are not unaware of them. Their refusal to answer the cur alii alii non question, their firm adherence to both sola gratia and universalis gratia, is further evidence of this fact, and other examples could be multiplied. This willingness on the part of these theologians to abstain from drawing conclusions to which their doctrines seem irrevocably to point, irritating as it may be, must always be borne in mind, if we are correctly to understand their theology and avoid the pitfall of fabricating a straw Quenstedt or Calov. 4. THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN LACUNAE AND THEIR THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY This brings up the question whether the very idea of lacunae is not opposed to their theological method, or at least whether their circumscribed causal methodology did not in the nature of the case wrongly attempt to synthesize what was paradoxical in their theology, whether it did not at times point to theological conclusions which, though logically necessary, were theologically unwarranted. That their method did involve them in such inconsistencies is seen in their discussion of the criteria of Scripture, which was a fruitless attempt to put into smooth and coherent logical formulae what could only be accepted with faith. Putting it bluntly, it was an attempt to make faith reasonable which was a contradiction of everything these theologians stood for. An even more flagrant example of this weakness in their method was the regressus demonstrantivus argument of Hollaz which I have already mentioned and to which, happily, the earlier Lutheran teachers did not have recourse. The kindest criticism which can be made of this contradiction between their theology and their method is to say that it is just that, a contradiction between theology and method. When they refrain from the use of their restricted methodology or from the conclusions to which it seems to point and apply sola scriptura, lacunae appear and their theology becomes consistent with the principles of sola fide and sola scriptura. It might be mentioned at this point that the orthodoxy and the scholasticism of the dogmaticians do not necessarily go hand in hand, any more than in the theology of the medieval scholastics. Much of their theological method was taken from Calixt, who in their opinion was certainly not orthodox. Moreover, during the period of pietism an even more rigid scholasticism reigned in the field of systematical theology; Buddeus and Breithaupt, who were opposed to the orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, outdid their predecessors in this respect. 5. THE RELATION BETWEEN INSPIRATION AND ANTHROPOLOGY The analogy between a monergistic conception of inspiration and their doctrine of conversion leads to the question, what is the relation between anthropology and inspiration in the theology of the Lutheran dogmaticians? Did their anthropology, their profound sense of the spiritual perversity, moral corruption and positive concupiscence of the natural man, their deep-seated belief that man, even in a regenerate state, was unable to accomplish anything pleasing to God without the Spirit of God, their conviction that the Holy Spirit was the cause of every good work performed by the believer,1 did such an anthropology have any bearing on their doctrine of inspiration? The proximity of these two thoughts, even in respect to the terminology employed by the dogmaticians, is striking, and unquestionably they recognized its existence. But due to their local and analytical method of development it is difficult to determine whether their anthropology affected their idea of inspiration. It strongly appears that it did not. The monergistic doctrine of inspiration was doubtless worked out independently of their doctrine of man, in conformity with the Scripture principle. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that with such an anthropology it would have been impossible for them to adopt any conception of inspiration other than the monergistic doctrine which they taught. It is apropos in this connection to mention a mistaken idea which Dorner and others have circulated about the theology of the dogmaticians. Dorner has represented these theologians as teaching that faith in the truth of Scripture must precede saving faith in Christ.2 This is untrue. All the dogmaticians and particularly Calov, who is Dorner’s chief object of reproof, teach that before conversion man cannot comprehend the spiritual truths revealed in Scripture, much less accept them. Calov takes special pains to emphasize just this point in opposition to the Socinians, who denied that spiritual enlightenment was necessary for a spiritual understanding and saving knowledge of the teachings of Scripture.3 Calov clearly speaks his opinion in this matter: 4 ‘The unregenerate man is so destitute of all spiritual light that he cannot understand anything profitably in spiritual matters without the grace of the Holy Spirit, no matter how it is externally revealed and presented, because he has a darkened understanding.’ It seems needless to repeat that the dogmaticians are unanimously in accord with the teaching of the second article of the Formula of Concord, that the unregenerate man not only fails to comprehend the divine mysteries revealed in Scripture, but actively contends against this heavenly wisdom and regards it as foolishness and falsehood.1 Faith in the divinity of the Word of God is a fruit of the Gospel.2 Only a believer will receive this apostolic witness.3 Gospel preaching works faith, but it also brings about an acceptance of the word of the apostles and prophets as the very Word of God. This is of great significance. The old Lutheran teachers know of no separation of a saving faith in Christ and a belief in the authority and inspiration of the written Word of God.4 Part of Dorner’s trouble is that he fails to understand what the dogmaticians mean by faith as notitia, assensus and fiducia. He describes their position as if they divide faith into these three elements as a man might cut an apple into three separate pieces, as if according to them notitia could be present before true faith, or at least could have being apart from faith. It is true that the dogmaticians speak of historical faith as lacking only fiducia,5 but usually they speak of notitia as an essential element of saving faith.6 It is not a prerequisite of faith, nor is it a notitia historica or implicita. It is supernatural and personal and it is the gift of God in conversion.7 The dogmaticians do not hesitate to equate it with saving faith.1 Before conversion there can be no true knowledge of Christian doctrine nor any acceptance of spiritual truth. This is the definite conviction of all the dogmaticians. Brunner 2 has followed the lead of Dorner: he says that the authority of Scripture, according to the orthodox Lutheran theologians, precedes all faith. It is, of course, impossible that they could have taught what Brunner and Dorner say they taught without overthrowing the whole structure of their anthropology. To the old dogmaticians any spiritual action attributed to the natural man, such as accepting the authority of Scripture, was synergism. 6. THE ANALOGY BETWEEN INSPIRATION AND CHRISTOLOGY An analogy has been often observed between Christology and inspiration as the two teachings are presented by the old Lutheran teachers, an analogy which is said to be the more pronounced because of their fixed Aristotelian terminology.3 The terminology used in reference to these two teachings is indeed similar. The dogmaticians, however, make no mention of such an analogy, and with good reason. To press this analogy would almost certainly do violence to the doctrine of the personal union as it was confessed by Lutheran theology. Although the Lutheran symbols employ the analogy of iron glowing with fire in speaking of the personal union,4 Lutheran theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth century recognize the utter inadequacy of analogy in describing the hypostatic union, for it was their firm conviction that this union, properly speaking, was unique and without analogy, inasmuch as it was a union between God and man, a union between disparata which were mutually exclusive.1 Also, their stand regarding the and of the human nature of Christ, namely, that Christ’s human nature has no personality of itself but subsists in the personality of the ,2 would prevent their using the analogy of the unio personalis with the human and the divine factor in Scripture, since in the case of inspiration the human personality, so to say, the genus loquendi, the words, the personal witness etc., that is, the human element in Scripture, existed before the divine act of inspiration and is always present in the Scriptures. There is only one statement which I have found in the dogmaticians to indicate any awareness of such an analogy; the reference is to be found in Calov’s Systerna, where he says that efficacy, or more properly power, has been communicated to Scripture in the same manner as divine attributes were communicated to the human nature of Christ.3 However, when he speaks here of a communicated virtus, he means that ‘power’ is communicated only to the forma of Scripture, which is not human but divine. This is seen clearly from the fact that he previously stated that the divine power and efficacy of Scripture resides not in its materia, the written words and documents, but only in its inner forma, its divine and inspired meaning, which is the mind and the counsel of God,1 and which is common to the Word of God in whatever form it may take. The analogy seems to be this: as divine attributes are communicated to the human nature of Christ, so the divine power is communicated to the divine in Scripture. At this point there seems to be an inconsistency. What need is there for power being communicated to the forma of Scripture, which is already divine (since it is the mens Dei and the sapientia Dei) in its very nature? Calov might reply that the analogy ought not to be pressed so far, and there may seem to be some justification for such a reply when we note that he previously said that the Word of God, viewed formally, in the nature of the case, because it is the Word of God, is divine and powerful.2 This, by the way, was his first argument for the efficacy of the Word. Actually, no clear-cut distinction is made by the dogmaticians between the divine and the human element in Scripture. For this reason it is dangerous and almost insuperably difficult to apply any Christological analogy to their doctrine. For want of a better way to give expression to their position in this matter, let us assume that the human side of Scripture is the so-called materia ex qua which they talk about, and the divine side is the inner forma of Scripture. According to all the orthodox Lutheran teachers, inspiration and inerrancy (which is really a part of inspiration) are predicated of both the content of Scripture and its materia, the letters, words etc. (human side). The properties of Scripture, however, are predicated only of the forma of Scripture. The authority of Scripture does not reside in the words, but in the content, the doctrines of the Word. A translation possesses the same causative authority as the Greek and Hebrew MSS. The same may be said in reference to the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture: not all the words of Scripture are clear, but all doctrines necessary for salvation are clearly revealed in Scripture.3 That the efficacy of the Word inheres only in the divine forma has already been shown. In fact, in his discussion of the efficacy of Scripture Calov goes so far as to state that only the forma of Scripture, properly speaking, can be called the Word of God.1 Still assuming that the human side of Scripture is the materia and the divine side the forma, we see that it would be wrong to think of the relation between the two in terms of a genus maiestaticum. There is never any vis or efficacia in the materia of Scripture: nothing in this respect has been communicated to the so-called human side of Scripture. And although the materia of Scripture is given by inspiration and divine direction, that is not due to any communication from the forma. Even speaking of a genus apotelesmaticum would be fraught with difficulties. True, Scripture as a whole, according to both its formal and its material principle, was inspired, but efficacy and causative authority reside only in its forma. Another analogy with Christology might easily present itself: the analogy of the Word, considered formally, as an instrument (vehiculum, instrumentum) of the Spirit in His soteriological activity, and the human nature of Christ, as the instrument of the in His mediatorial office. In both cases there is a . I quote a statement of Quenstedt’s regarding the instrumentality of the human nature of Christ in His work of redemption: 2 ‘We must distinguish between a separated instrument and a united instrument, between an instrument which is inactive and one which is co-operative. In [carrying out] the works of the mediatorial office the human nature of Christ is, in truth, the organ of the however, not a separated organ, but one which is personally united with the Aoyo?. It is not inactive like the rod of Moses, but a co-operative organ, namely, an instrument of such a nature that the subsistence and majesty of the , or primary cause, was imparted to it.’ This statement could describe in every respect the union of the Word and the Spirit in bringing about conversion, except for one very important point, the latter union is not personal. It is interesting to note how close their terminology is on these two counts. An analogy of the relation of the eye to the mind was used to illustrate their point in both cases. But we must never forget in this connection what the dogmaticians never forgot, that the incarnation was a union which was unique and without parallel. We must not forget their reverence towards this event. 7. CRITICISM OF THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF THE EFFICACY OF THE WORD Much criticism has been directed against the dogmaticians because of their doctrine of the divine efficacy of the Word of God. Movius accused them of idolatry because they taught that the Word possesses power even apart from its use, and in modern times Dorner has called the doctrine a ‘deification’ of the holy Scriptures.1 This is strong criticism. Calov and Hollaz answer the objection of Movius by saying that they do not wish to attribute power to the Scriptures independently (originaliter and independenter)—that would be idolatry—but only by virtue of divine communication and ordination and of the union of the Holy Spirit with the Word.2 Then they go on to say that the Word, viewed formally as the divinely inspired meaning, is not a creature, but is the mens et consilium Dei. Some—Calov does not say who— have preferred to call it something of God (1 Cor. 2. 11), a sort of divine outflow or emanation ( quadam divina). Be that as it may, divine power is not communicated to a creation of God, to a creature. One wishes to ask at this point: if the Word (viewed formally) is something of God, how can and why should power be communicated to it? Calov never taught that power was communicated to the materia of the Word. And under these same circumstances, if the forma of the Word is already divine, what need is there for a union of the Holy Spirit with it? Calov would have answered that the forma of the Word is divine, that it is the mens Dei by virtue of communication, by virtue of the union of the Spirit with it; otherwise it is only human. But if this is the case, what need is there for his first point in his reply to Movius? If the Word of God is the mens Dei, why should it not possess power independenter? Calov and Hollaz would have done better if they had offered one rather than two replies to Movius. Calov goes on in his reply to Movius to add that if it is idolatry to ascribe power to the divine Word, it is equally idolatrous to confess that Christ exerted divine power also according to His human nature. Such reasoning would hardly have silenced Movius, who would have had no scruples about rejecting the second genus of the communicatio idiomatum and accusing the Lutherans of deifying the human nature of Christ. At this point the opposing Christology of Movius and Calov would share in determining what side they would take in this controversy over the efficacy of the Word. An additional observation might be made in reference to the efficacy of Scripture: if Scripture according to its forma is the Word of God, not metonymically or significatively, but realiter, that is to say, if it is, strictly speaking, not a creature, but rather the mens et sapientia Dei, it cannot be a hypostatization to attribute divine power to it. Those who would criticize the Lutheran doctrine at this point must attack them further back in their theology of the Word of God; they must part company with the dogmaticians when they teach that Scripture is in truth the very Word of God. It is apparent that, when Dorner says1 that in the old Lutheran theology God simply abdicated His saving activity to Scripture, he is making no attempt to understand their position. 8. CRITICISM OF THE LUTHERAN PRINCIPLE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA A similar but far less justified charge of biblicism and scripturalism has been levelled against the old Lutheran theologians because of their devotion to the Scripture principle. As early as 1525, long before any of the seventeenth century ‘biblicists’ had arrived on the scene, Eck had called the Lutherans ‘ink theologians’ (theologi atramentales) because they believed that all Christian doctrine should be derived from Scripture.1 Henry Lancellatus in his tract Hunnius’ Halter (Capistrum Hunniarum) calls the Lutherans of his day ‘deifiers of the Word’ (verbi deistae).2 Gabriel Prateolus in his Elenchus Haereticorum3 calls the Lutherans biblicists and scripturalists. At the colloquy at Ratisbon the Lutherans were called ‘Wortsknechte’ and ‘scriptuarii’ for holding to sola scriptural.4 These same accusations are brought today against the Lutherans of the seventeenth century and their Scripture principle. They are accusations which are not meant to be complimentary and yet they are not entirely inaccurate. Certainly the Lutherans of the seventeenth century had what some have called a ‘paper pope.’ The dogmaticians, however, do not resent being called such names. To all such charges Gerhard mildly replies:5 ‘So long as God allows them [the papists] to be rulers and lords over the Word, manhandling it and wresting it according to their own whims, we shall be servants and students of that Word. Let them be traditionalists and we shall be biblicists and scripturalists.’ Today he would not answer differently those who deny the authority and inspiration of Scripture. 9. THE IMPORTANCE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA Another point should be re-emphasized in retrospect, even at the risk of becoming repetitious: the dogmaticians’ main thesis in their doctrine of Scripture is to maintain unadulterated the principle of sola scriptura. This highly important fact bears constant repetition and cannot be overstressed. Their laborious efforts to vindicate the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity, the perfection, the clarity and authority of Scripture, were directed to this one end, that Scripture reign inviolate as the principium unicum cognoscendi, the only norm of Christian doctrine and conduct.1 To the orthodox Lutheran teachers inspiration was subordinate to the Scripture principle, and, if considered alone, apart from sola scriptura and the efficacy and gracious purpose of Scripture, inspiration was simply meaningless. This emphasis, which is more than an emphasis, sets the old Lutheran teachers apart from much of what goes by the name of fundamentalism today. 10. SOLA SCRIPTURA AND SOLA FIDE Perhaps the most serious and surely the most unkind criticism which has been levelled against the old Lutheran doctrine of Scripture is the indictment of Sasse and Dorner and others that these theologians substituted sola scriptura for sola fide. Both Sasse and Dorner charge that the period of orthodoxy manifested a different spirit from the Reformation in that the Lutheran theologians of that day no longer regarded justification by faith as a principle coordinate with the Scripture principle. Sasse compares these theologians of the seventeenth century with Luther. He says that Luther believed in the Bible because he believed in Christ; the later orthodox dogmaticians believed in Christ because they believed in Scripture. With them sola fide was the result of sola scriptura.2 Dorner 3 goes so far as to assert that the material principle of Christianity was gradually extinguished by the dogmaticians, who made it depend entirely on the Scripture principle. These criticisms are so sweeping that one is tempted to brush them aside and discount them entirely, but they are quite general and there is a little truth in them. There is a spirit manifesting itself during the period of Lutheran orthodoxy which is quite different from that of Luther. The intensity and beauty of Luther’s unbroken, ringing refrain of justification by faith is missing in much of the theological literature of the following century. Luther’s fresh and exciting approach to theology, always in the light of forgiveness for Christ’s sake through faith, often gives place to a rather dry, matter-of-fact presentation of doctrine (except perhaps in the cases of Gerhard and Dannhauer, whose writings become stimulating and truly beautiful at times). One cannot approach the ponderous tomes of the dogmaticians without some apprehension, and as one opens them and reads one is often repelled by the scholasticism and abstraction which one finds therein. Yes, the powerful emphasis of a Luther upon the centrality of justification is wanting in some of the theological literature of the seventeenth century teachers. But a lack of emphasis, important and far-reaching as it may be, is not necessarily a deviation in doctrine. What do the dogmaticians teach about faith and its relation to Christ and to Scripture? According to the dogmaticians, saving faith is a personal trust in and application of the merits of Christ,1 so that the believer says, ‘I believe that Christ suffered and died for me and offers me salvation.’ 2 Saving faith is always and only in Christ, in His person and in His work.3 It is true that a believer accepts all of Scripture; 4 there are certain articuli antecedentes et consequentes which the Christian must and will believe.5 But real, justifying faith is always and only in the grace of God which is promised in Christ.6 In view of these observations it is nonsense to submit that the material principle of Christianity was extinguished by the Lutherans of the seventeenth century.7 It is true that their treatment of the sola scriptura principle is more detached from the article of justification by faith than it might have been— such a fault is inherent in their systematic method—but they did not do away with the article of justification as the foundation of living and personal Christianity, as the above observations show.1 They will not even speak of inspiration or the authority of Scripture as a fundamental article of faith. People have been saved who have never heard that there is such a thing as a Bible. The dogmaticians regarded Scripture as the source of Christian theology, as the infallible norm of faith and life, but never as the source of Christianity itself. Like Luther they believed that justification was the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae.2 One can only presume that Sasse is indulging in satire when he says that the old Lutheran teachers made the inspiration of Scripture the fundamental article of the Christian faith upon which all other doctrines must follow. Again, we must ask, was it, at least partially, their theological method which prevented the dogmaticians from bringing out Luther’s important emphasis upon the centrality of justification in all theological thought? And again the answer will be ‘yes.’ Thus it had to be. The dogmaticians were, after all, dogmaticians and systematizers; Luther was not. And they lived and worked in a milieu quite different from that of Luther’s day. Lutheran theologians in the seventeenth century were searching for an adequate means of expressing themselves in terms of both proclamation and apologetics. Unfortunately, they embraced an Aristotelian-scholastic mode of presentation which, although exact and clear, was definitely limited. Set in the framework of a causal methodology their theological position often gives the appearance of being logical and impressive and it was articulated in a manner which was clear and understandable. One will not often have to fault the dogmaticians for inconsistency in this respect. But this strength of their theological method was also its weakness. Lutheran theology could not always be expressed in the fixed categories of such a method, and in many cases its exponents either had to refrain from applying their method or were compelled to augment it somehow. When they failed in this they failed to present true Lutheran theology, as we have seen in their treatment of the criteria of Scripture as against the witness of the Spirit and sola scriptura. When Gerhard, followed by Hollaz, Baier and others, partly in order to conform to the dictates of this causal methodology and partly to defend the Lutheran doctrine from the charge of Calvinism, taught a predestination intuitu fidei praevisae, he departed from the teaching of Luther and the Formula of Concord and set in motion a controversy which even to this day has not been settled in Lutheran circles—a good example of the influence apologetics and theological method could exert on their theology. However, the aim of all the orthodox dogmaticians was to be faithful to the principles and the theology of the Reformation. With but few exceptions they succeeded in this aim. 1 Many will not agree with the dogmaticians at this point. Still they cannot say that a mechanical theory of inspiration was taught during the period of orthodoxy. Richard Rothe thinks that verbal inspiration and accommodation are irreconcilable (Zur Dogmatik, zweite Auflage, Gotha, 1869, 1, 135). He says the dogmaticians explained the stylistic differences in Scripture by accommodation, not by the characteristics of the writers. This is self-contradictory since accommodation postulates that the personalities and endowments of the writers account for the variations in style in Scripture.