IS.Chapter1.docx

CHAPTER ONE SCRIPTURE AS THE SOURCE OF THEOLOGY 1. THE MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURE PRINCIPLE JUST as to Luther doctrine was one continuous and round golden ring in which there is no break, it was to the orthodox Lutherans of the following century a unit,1 so that if we are to gain a complete picture of...

CHAPTER ONE SCRIPTURE AS THE SOURCE OF THEOLOGY 1. THE MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURE PRINCIPLE JUST as to Luther doctrine was one continuous and round golden ring in which there is no break, it was to the orthodox Lutherans of the following century a unit,1 so that if we are to gain a complete picture of their conception of inspiration we must not restrict ourselves merely to those loci in their works which deal specifically with Scripture. Inseparably connected to their views regarding inspiration, and, one might add, basic to their whole interest in this doctrine, is the place they assign to Scripture as the source of theology (principium cognoscendi, principium theologiae). By this they mean that Scripture is the only norm of Christian doctrine; that is to say, the means, the causa media, by which we learn to know God and His will is His revelation which is contained in Scripture.2 This source of theology is more sure and certain than heaven and earth. The sources of all other knowledge are in a completely different category. All other knowledge must be derived from empirical evidence, from the light of nature and experience.3 Revealed, supernatural theology is to be drawn only from the revealed and written Word of God. Otherwise our theology is false and so is our Christ. The norm and standard for portraying [Christ],’ says Dannhauer,4 ‘is the revealed Word. If one departs from this, he portrays not Christ, but his own dreams.’ Scripture is the principium cognoscendi of a theology which is specifically called ‘revealed’ theology, and that not because it enlightens our minds with a supernatural knowledge of God, but because all the things which it is necessary to know about God and the worship of Him have been supernaturally revealed through the means of inspired men in the written Word of God. Revealed theology is to be distinguished from natural theology, whose source is not supernatural revelation but reason and nature, and which offers not a saving knowledge of the Gospel, but only a knowledge of God’s law, of His existence and of His justice. The dogmaticians also speak of divine and supernatural revelation as the source of theology.1 They can say this with no contradiction because they regard Scripture as a species of the genus revelation. However, the source of supernatural theology is narrowed down to Scripture as revelation. With the completion of the canon immediate revelation ceased. Therefore objective revelation, that is, revelation viewed as that which has been revealed, is to be sought only in Scripture today. And so Gerhard says,2 ‘We conclude that the correct and exclusive source of supernatural theology is divine revelation, which does not exist today except as found in the holy Scriptures, that is, the books of the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles. Therefore we say that the written Word of God, or, in other words, the holy Scripture, is the one and the only source of theology.’ Quenstedt says that until the time of Moses revelation as it was handed down (propagata) by word of mouth was the source of theology. Immediately after the first canon was constituted, which comprised the Pentateuch, the book of Job and Psalm 90, revelation as handed down (tradita) by word of mouth was no longer the norm of faith and life; the norm was only that revelation which was recorded in books.3 I do not think that Quenstedt wishes to imply here that revelation per se as it assumed various forms was no longer a principium cognoscendi after the formation of the first canon. Nor would he mean to imply that the Word of God as it was actually preached by the inspired prophets and apostles was not normative in the same sense as the written Word, although his words seem to say this. That would have involved him in a compromise of his firm position regarding the unity of the Word of God,1 and would have conditioned the old Lutheran rule, ‘Quicquid Deus proposuit, reverenter credendum est.’ In view of the polemical context of this statement it is reasonable to assume that his reference to revelatio viva voce tradita does not pertain to objective revelation as such but to the account of this revelation as it was given over a period of time. Polemical interests may also account for the words, ‘sola illa, quae literis erat consignata, revelationis norma fuit ac principium.’ If Quenstedt is not to contradict himself, this statement, which is not entirely clear, can only mean that the ordinary Hebrew of the Old Testament, who perhaps had little contact with the prophets and those to whom God revealed him-self immediately, would use only the Scripture as his norm in matters of faith and life. The dogmaticians think of Scripture as the organic foundation of our faith.2 Scripture is the source of theology only in an instrumental sense. It is not the cause of the being of theology; that would be a deification of Scripture. God is the so-called principium essendi, the first cause of theology; He is its foundation, its beginning and its end. This important point is brought out by Quenstedt in the following manner. We must distinguish, he says, between the one who reveals truth, who is God, and the truth which is revealed, which is Scripture. The former is the principium essendi of theology, for theology has its being from God; the latter is its principium cognoscendi, for from Scripture theology is known and understood.3 Scripture therefore as the source of theology is simply a directive principle.1 It is nothing more than the norm by which we judge in doctrinal matters.2 Scripture is the source and norm of theology not only in regard to its letters and words but also in regard to its sense understood implicitly and explicitly, so that everything which is contained in Scripture or drawn from Scripture through legitimate consequences is included in the word ‘Scripture.’3 This does not mean that theological conclusions, doctrines themselves, are to be thought of as a source of theology, for these conclusions are based on Scripture. Certain scholastics, such as Thomas Aquinas, had taught that the articles of faith were sources of theology. Gerhard4 criticizes this view and points out that the articles of faith are merely theological conclusions which are based on the Word of God. They are not principia but principiata. Gerhard, of course, realizes only too well that such a contention as that of the old scholastics would completely destroy the Lutheran Scripture principle, since the Romanists held that all doctrines were not to be drawn from Scripture alone. In support of their position the dogmaticians insist that Scripture itself knows of no other source of theology. There is no light in the person who does not speak according to the Word of Scripture (Isa. 8. 20). Christ and His apostles always appealed only to Scripture in support of theological truth, and we today are to follow this precedent. Furthermore, since Scripture contains everything we need to know for our salvation, it must be the source of revealed doctrine. 2. THE IMPORTANCE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA Of the utmost importance to all the Lutheran dogmaticians is the proposition that Scripture alone is the source of all knowledge of supernatural theology. Scripture as the principium cognoscendi stands alone, by itself, for God does not speak to us except through the Scripture.1 Scripture must stand alone in this respect or not at all. If it is not the only norm of doctrine, it is not a norm in the true sense of the word.2 As Christians we accept Scripture and yield to all its utterances as if God Himself had made them, since Scripture is God speaking to us. Nor do we believe the Scriptures because of external evidence or anything outside them: we simply accept the Scriptures in faith.3 Not to believe in Scripture as the source of theology which needs no proof is heathenish: a Christian asks for no proof.4 Hutter contends that God’s Word as the source (Grund) of all faith and life was the confession of Luther and of all the confessions. This fact, he maintains, distinguishes the Lutheran Church from most of the Catholics, Zwinglians, Calvinists and Anabaptists as ‘die reine rechtglaubige Kirche.’ 5 This remark of Hutter’s gives us an idea of the importance of this Scripture principle in Lutheran theology. 3. THE SCRIPTURE PRINCIPLE AND TRADITION The strong emphasis laid by the dogmaticians on this fact that Scripture alone was the means of knowing revealed theology was due mainly to the continual attacks made by Catholic controversialists against this position. Roman Catholic theology held that besides Scripture there were other sources of theological truth, namely, unwritten tradition, decrees of councils and of Popes. This was the crux of all the doctrinal differences between the two parties. At this point all argumentation and discussion between the opposing sides was checked. To be sure, the Catholics did not deny that revelation was the only source of theology, but they did regard unwritten tradition and the decrees of Popes and Church councils as revelation along with Scripture. It was the Lutheran contention that no unwritten tradition exists today which sheds light on any article of faith.1 The Church is under obligation to accept only an inerrant and inspired Word of God. Such attributes cannot be predicated of unwritten tradition, nor can unwritten traditions be regarded as infallible and be accepted with divine assurance along with Scripture. The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture will not allow tradition to be considered as revelation. All the counsel of God is set forth in Scripture (Acts 20, 27), and there is no need for more revelation. Moreover, the origin of all unwritten tradition is uncertain. Traditions often contradict themselves, and the memories of those who hand down traditions cannot always be trusted. Christ Himself rejects traditions as a source of theological knowledge when He constantly urges people to return to the Scriptures (Lk. 16. 29; 24. 27; Jn. 5. 39, 46). He does not condemn these traditions as bad in themselves, but when they are placed beside Scripture and made a necessary part of worship He rejects them. It follows that the decrees of Popes and Church councils cannot be considered principia alongside Scripture. Calov 2 points out that in the Roman Church the Pope is de facto not merely one of many authorities in matters of doctrine and life, but ultimately the one and the highest authority, the very principium primum et summum. If Scripture is appealed to, the Pope is its interpreter. If councils are appealed to, the Pope alone can summon them and he alone can ratify them. This fact is brought out even more clearly in the claims regarding papal infallibility. None of his public utterances can be false or heretical; all his public pronouncements, conclusions and definitions are inerrant. In fact, whatever he defines pro cathedra he does with the direct assistance of the Holy Spirit. Thus with one stroke the papists have more than the fanatics with all their visions, revelations and angelic conversations, and more than the Photinians and Calvinists with all their reason. Calov argues that the Pope must either make his pronouncements in accordance with God’s Word or in opposition to it. If he teaches contrary to the Word of God he falls under God’s curse. If he teaches in agreement with God’s Word he differs in no way from any other minister of the Word. Of course, the numberless examples of Popes falling into error and heresy and contradicting themselves in their public utterances completely discount their extravagant claims. And what applies to tradition and papal proclamations applies with equal force to decrees of Church councils. Church councils and Church Fathers are all bound by the Word of God. Their authority is drawn from the Word of God and depends upon it, and they too, like tradition and the Pope, are subject to error. The true Church is the witness, guardian and interpreter of Scripture, which is the Church’s source of theology. The testimony of the Fathers and of Church councils is human, and no human testimony can be a source in matters of divine truth. It is the opinion of all the dogmaticians that the papists by adding to the Scriptures other principia as sources of theology do away with the sola scriptura principle entirely. If something is added to a principium, if something is made to condition it in any way, it ceases to be a principium. To place the authority of tradition, the Church and the Pope alongside Scripture denies to Scripture eo ipso the quality of a principium, which in the very nature of the case is independent, and in effect reduces Scripture to a norma normata, since in practice the papists subject it to the interpretation and authority of the Church and the Pope. In the preface to his Philosophia Sobria Balthasar Meisner 1 indicates that the cause of the vast chasm separating Lutheranism and Romanism is to be found in this anthithesis regarding principles.2 He begins by expressing his adherence to the proposition TO (truth is one but falsehood is manifold). Only the divine mind can measure truth. Because the measure of truth is one, constant and immutable, truth itself is one and unchanging. The standard and norm of all pure doctrine is the inviolate and divine book of Scripture, which also is one and offers only the orthodox faith. The countless aberrations and heresies which are taught in the kingdom of Antichrist have arisen because the papacy has forsaken this one norm of truth, to such an extent that she now calls Scripture imperfect, obscure and flexible, a wax nose, a Lesbian norm, a cause of strife and insanity, a seed of heresy and controversy, a dead letter, a Sybillan truth and a dead gospel. To Meisner the great gulf between Lutheranism and Catholicism is due primarily to the latter’s setting aside Scripture as the source of theology. It is as simple as that. Meisner’s contention is that false doctrine gave rise to the idea of unwritten tradition as a source of doctrine. They knew, he says, that their dogmas lacked the proper Scriptural foundation, and hence lest their human dreams be rejected they resorted to human tradition, and, true to the words of Tertullian, ‘credunt sine scripturis, ut credent adversus scripturas.’ It is important to bear in mind the great significance of this Scripture principle in the theology of the dogmaticians. To uphold sola scriptura, to retain the authority of Scripture, was always a major concern of these theologians. The importance of this fact cannot be over-emphasized. Sola scriptura was the basis and starting point of all their theological endeavour whether they were engaged in polemics or in peaceful theological pursuits. Constant fear and vigilance lest anything apart from Scripture compromise or limit this principle is a consideration which pervades their approach to every problem connected with Scripture in particular and theology in general, and is a factor which must be borne in mind constantly in any study or analysis of their position concerning Scripture if we are to draw a true picture of their theology. Their position concerning the attributes of Scripture will easily be recognized as subordinate always to this, their first concern, that Scripture maintain unadulterated its function as the only source of theology. It might even be asked whether it was not the aversion of their adversaries to this principle which necessitated a locus concerning Scripture in the writings of these men when treatment of such a doctrine was scarcely entertained in the preceding century. To the seventeenth century dogmaticians Scripture as the source of theology and Scripture as the true, inspired and absolutely authoritative Word of God are two truths which complement each other. If one falls the other must follow suit. By attacking the first of these truths the Jesuits were compelled to deny certain elements of the second, and the Lutherans in turn were forced to deal with the inspiration of Scripture in a way in which they had never done before, except in passing. It is at just this point concerning Scripture as the principium cognoscendi that inadequate attention has been paid to their treatment of Scripture, and consequently there has resulted, I believe, a failure on the part of many to apprehend the real essence of their doctrine of Scripture. The following pages of this investigation will bring out this fact. 4. THE SCRIPTURE PRINCIPLE AND REASON The dogmaticians with one voice deny to reason the right to sit in judgment over matters of doctrine. Since human reason and philosophy are ignorant of supernatural theology and can offer no information about the way of salvation they cannot serve as sources of faith.1 Quenstedt 2 expounds the Lutheran position more thoroughly than any of the others. He begins his discussion by asserting that he would never wish to do away with reason altogether. Reason used passively is necessary for gaining and understanding information.3 In this sense it is a means (principium quo), for only through his reason, or intellect, does man understand. Without reason no one could occupy himself with theology, which cannot be presented to dumb animals which have no understanding. Reason is the means employed with organic principles such as logic, language, grammar etc. which are essential to the meaning of theology. But reason as a source (principium quod) has no place in theological discipline. A ratio ministerialis is never to be condemned: that is necessary to all understanding. Christ taught according to reason when he employed parables and illustrations. Only a ratio magisterialis which sets itself above the Word of God is to be condemned. Calov also argues in great detail against the ability of reason to judge in doctrinal concerns.1 He maintains that reason and theology belong in two entirely different spheres, for the one works with natural revelation, the other with supernatural; if not confused they will not conflict with each other. Faith is above reason. Reason therefore can and should not sit in judgment over faith. Since natural reason cannot aspire to a knowledge of supernatural revelation, it must, according to its own rule, refrain from all judgment in spiritual matters. 1 Cor. 2. 14 proves this. If the natural man regards the things of the spirit of God as foolishness he is certainly incapable of passing judgment on them. The mysteries of our faith can be judged spiritually only by those who are led by the Spirit of God to understand the meaning of the divine Word. This fact denies to carnal, unregenerate reason any such power. As further proof Calov appeals to Rom. 8. 7. The carnal mind with its thoughts and reason is not able not to oppose God (‘non potest non hostiliter repugnare Deo’) and consequently everything which is of God, His wisdom and His truth. Since reason cannot understand and even despises divine things it cannot be a principium fidei. Rather because of this fact reason must be taken captive in obedience to Christ. To give reason a place in judging theology would utterly confuse reason and revelation 2 and would cause great harm. Hence it is the Christian’s noblest skill in all trouble and temptation to follow the examples of Abraham and Naaman and trust in the Word of promise, not lean upon his reason, which, as Luther says, is a liar. This brings up the question, discussed more fully by the earlier dogmaticians, whether there is any real contradiction between theology and reason. The dogmaticians answer that Christian truth is not contrary to reason, but above reason.3 A conflict occurs only when reason transgresses its boundaries and presumes to judge Scripture by philosophical and un-Scriptural principles. Then reason conflicts with all the mysteries of our faith.1 ‘Theologia non damnat rationis usum sed abusum.’ Brochmand 2 analyses the relation between theology and reason in the following way. The articles of Christian faith are above reason and even contrary to unregenerate reason. Reason is a gift of God, but since the Fall it cannot comprehend divine things (1 Cor. 2. 14). Reason is, of course, required to understand Scripture; it perceives and retains what Scripture says. But left to itself reason would oppose all the divine mysteries taught in Scripture. Reason is a light in that it receives and understands the things of this world, but if required to comprehend heavenly mysteries which are the it is, as John says (Jn. 1. 5), utter darkness. Gerhard points out that even regenerate reason cannot serve as any aid to the Scripture principle, because, in the very nature of the case, regenerate reason employs the Scripture principle.3 It is therefore impossible for regenerate reason in so far as it is regenerate to be at variance with any article of faith.4 Even regenerate reason must be taken captive in obedience to Christ, for even though regenerate reason makes Scripture and not itself the principle of knowledge in matters of faith, yet it is never completely enlightened and perfectly sanctified. In reply to the opinion that regenerate reason is to be made a principle of knowledge subordinate to Scripture Dannhauer says: 5 ‘This argument would be accepted if man’s reason had remained incorrupt and if a stream still polluted with sin had not flowed into it. But the water has been tampered with; it is like sweet water and yet it is suspected of being poisonous, since every imagination of man’s heart is evil continually. And was not Sarah born again? And yet she ridiculed and derided the promise of God as an absurdity.’ The dogmaticians will allow no subordinate source of Christian knowledge to stand beside Scripture, not even the reason of the regenerate man. Scripture stands alone as the one and only source of theology (principium unicum et primum theologiae). The old Lutheran dogmaticians loved Scripture. Revealed within this Word of very God was everything they needed to know for salvation and right living. And Scripture did not merely point the way to eternal life; it was an effective means of conversion and sanctification.1 Sola scriptura was therefore a principle which they were anxious to observe and carry out in practice at all times. There is a statement of Calov’s touching the use of Scripture which tells clearly what this principle meant to the dogmaticians and how they thought it should be upheld. Calov says: 2 ‘This article is to be used in the following manner: (1) We are to recognize and accept without reservation the holy Scripture—all of it, the Old Testament no less than the New— as the Word of Almighty God, and we are to regard and cherish it as the most precious of treasures. (2) We are devoutly to give audience to God speaking in the Word, we are to reflect upon His Word day and night and we are to explore it with true piety and utmost devotion. (3) We are to turn neither to the right nor to the left from Scripture, nor are we to suffer ourselves to be moved to the slightest degree by the solicitation of others or the desires of our own flesh, lest in some way we introduce something in doctrine or life which is contrary to better knowledge or against our conscience. (4) We are to accord faith to the Scriptures in all [their utterances] and place our trust only in the Scriptures, or the Word of God, and bravely fight with them as with the sword of the Spirit against whatever temptations may arise. (5) We are to gain comfort from them alone in every necessity of body and soul, and through patient consolation of the Scriptures have a sure hope of life and remain steadfast to the end of life.’