IS.Chapter9.docx

CHAPTER NINE THE EFFICACY OF SCRIPTURE 1. THE WORD AS A MEANS OF GRACE AND THE MEANING OF EFFICACY THERE is an urgency on the part of all the orthodox Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century to uphold the principle that Scripture is the only source of revealed theology. Certainly this was th...

CHAPTER NINE THE EFFICACY OF SCRIPTURE 1. THE WORD AS A MEANS OF GRACE AND THE MEANING OF EFFICACY THERE is an urgency on the part of all the orthodox Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century to uphold the principle that Scripture is the only source of revealed theology. Certainly this was their chief interest in all their discussions on Scripture. The necessity, authority, perfection, truthfulness and clarity of Scripture all directly support the principle of sola scriptura. But their doctrine of Scripture, or the Word of God, is utterly incomplete if viewed exclusively in the light of this principle. Their doctrine of the Word of God assumes its true significance only when viewed soteriologically, when considered as an operative factor in God’s plan of salvation. This aspect of their doctrine has not been relegated into the background by the dogmaticians as some have implied when they say that the Scripture principle was to the old Lutheran teachers the fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith upon which their whole theological system was built (if they can be said to have had a system at all!), as if sola fide had been effaced by sola scriptura. On the contrary, the concept of the Word of God as a gracious means whereby God brings the sinner to faith in Christ is in no way subordinated to the authority of Scripture. In fact, only one who has been touched, nay, converted, by this Word of Life will accept its authority. For this reason the dogmaticians teach that the Word of God must not only be viewed ratione as a principium cognoscenti, but also ratione , as a principium operandi, vel efficiendi seu , vel effectivum, quatenus est medium convertendi, regenerandi, justificandi, salvandi.1 In other words, the written and preached Word of God has the intrinsic power to convert all men indiscriminately.2 In brief, the Lutheran doctrine of the divine efficacy of the Word of God is this, according to Quenstedt:1 the Word of God (Quenstedt is speaking of Scripture here, but also of the verbum in all its various forms) by virtue of the ordination and will of very God possesses a certain intrinsic divine power which is also sufficient and indiscriminate. This Word works gracious results by effecting enlightenment, conversion, regeneration and salvation, and also punitive results, punishment, death and damnation. Such results the Word accomplishes immediate, vere ac proprie, but also —and this is important—organically and instrumentally. This means that the Word of God does not act as the moving cause in man’s conversion and regeneration and salvation, but only as the means or organ by means of which God chooses to bring about His gracious purpose.2 The Holy Spirit does not ordinarily work conversion and bestow faith without means, but with and through the Word as the usual means of working spiritual effects.3 This truth is brought out by those passages of Scripture which teach that God works faith and regeneration and conversion through the Word (Rom. 10. 17; 1 Cor. 4. 1, 5; Acts 11. 21). The gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed through the Word as through a means of conveyance (, vehiculum).4 Christ dwells in the hearts of those who receive and keep His Word (Jn. 14. 23; Eph. 3. 16, 17). The Word of God as a means of grace is not a passive instrument (instrumentum passivum, ein leidendes und empfahendes Werckzeug) which must be used before it has power, as a man would use a hammer to pound a nail. It is, according to Baier,1 an instrumentum cooperativum, ‘ein kraefftiges mitwirkendes Werckzeug’ like the hand or the eye of a living being.2 Gerhard calls it a causa instrumentaliter agens.3 The dogmaticians mean to bring out that not only is the object or purpose of the verbum to bring about spiritual effects, but its actual work is to accomplish such works in man: the Word of God is not a mere signum, a sign pointing the way to eternal life, but a gracious medium ordained to exert spiritual effects and efficacious to that end.4 The Gospel does not merely offer us righteousness and salvation, does not only invite us to accept Christ and enter His Kingdom, it actually confers such great blessings on us, quickens us and makes us partakers of Christ’s kingdom. This is the conclusion ‘Gerhard comes to on the basis of 1 Pet. 1. 23. He writes: 5 ‘[The Word] regenerates us not merely theoretically in that it enlightens the mind with a knowledge of the divine will and indicates to us what we must believe and do, but it does so actually in that it really turns the will to accept the divine witness and moves and transforms and awakens the heart to believe in it so that we cling to this grace which is offered in Christ and find happiness in it, and through this faith we become children of God and heirs of everlasting life. [The Word] quickens us not only in that it invites us to enjoy God’s favour towards us and encourages us with a living comfort, but it also makes us partakers of that spiritual life.’ It is chiefly on the basis of Jn. 6. 63 that the old Lutheran teachers hold that the power of the Word is not symbolical or theoretical, but real and true. Calov reasons on the basis of this passage that the Word of God, because it is indued with spirit and life, has the power to enlighten a sinner and is, moreover, gracious and efficacious in such a way that it actually confers spirit and life upon a sinner by virtue of God’s ordination and the union of the Spirit of God with it.1 Quenstedt is more precise in his interpretation of this passage.2 The words of Christ which were afterwards put in writing are spirit, i.e. animated with the Spirit of God, in such a way that Paul can say that the spirit, or Gospel, gives life (2 Cor. 3. 6), and life, not only because they work spiritual life in man and confer eternal life upon believers, but because they are living words endowed with the power and faculty (vis et facultas) of conferring life. Because the power of the Word is real power, its effects are real effects. The power of the Word penetrates to the very heart of man, converts, regenerates and completely changes him inwardly.3 That the Word of God is itself efficacious is shown in Rom. 1. 16. According to Quenstedt,4 the in this verse can only connote the power and faculty inhering in the Gospel through which God converts, regenerates, enlightens and saves man. For this reason it is called the ‘power of God unto salvation.’ which means the same as the Gospel of salvation (Eph. 1. 13). This power is not significative or representative like a statue of Mercury, but is real, and brings conversion and salvation. In the words of Quenstedt, ‘This Gospel is called the in the same way as the “weapons of our warfare” are called to the pulling down of the strongholds of Satan (2 Cor. 10. 4) and it does not mean “to signify” but “to exert power.” ’ This power does not come to the Gospel from without but is always in the Gospel itself. Paul is not speaking here of the object of the Gospel or its content, namely, Christ, as the Schwenkfeldians taught, or of the mysteries of the Gospel, namely, the incarnation and passion of Christ etc., as Bellarmine taught, but of the preaching of the Gospel. Finally, the many passages in Scripture which speak of the effects of the Word of God prove that this Word has the power to work and actually does work spiritual effects. To the Word is attributed the power to convert and regenerate (Ps. 19. 7, 8; Jer. 23. 29; 2 Tim. 2. 25; 1 Pet. 1. 23; Jas. 1. 18; 1 Cor. 4. 15; Gal. 4. 19), to bestow faith (Jn. 1. 7; 17. 20; Rom. 10. 17; 1 Cor. 3. 5; Col. 1. 5, 6; 2 Pet. 1. 19), to purify (Jn. 15. 3), to quicken (2 Cor. 3. 6; Eph. 2. 5; Phil. 2. 16; Acts 5. 20), to justify (Rom. 3. 27, 28), to sanctify (1 Pet. 1. 22), to renew (Eph. 4. 23), to preserve in grace and faith (1 Pet. 5. 10), and to save (Jn. 5. 24, 39; 6. 69; 1 Cor. 1. 21; Acts 11. 14). The law is said to harden, kill and damn. Now whatever brings about such supernatural effects must have the power to produce these accomplishments.1 For this reason the Word of God is likened to things which have intrinsic power, to a seed, to food, to medicine, to rain and snow, to wine, to fire, etc. The efficacy of the Word of God does not inhere in the letters and syllables and words as they are written. These are merely symbols, the vehicle (vehiculum) of the divine content, the forma, of the Word which alone is the Word of God, properly speaking.2 The dogmaticians will have no part of that ancient superstition which supposed that the words of the Bible as words could cure sickness and exorcise devils.3 In medieval times it was the practice of some to carry the Bible on their shoulders in the hope that it would ward off evil spirits and calamities. Only the inspired content of the Word which is the mind and counsel of God has the power to work conversion and other spiritual realities in man. It is extremely important to bear in mind that the dogmaticians are never speaking of the Bible as a book, of the materia of Scripture, or of the materia of the Word of God in general, when they say that the Word of God is efficacious. 2. THE INHERENT POWER OF THE WORD As already intimated the orthodox Lutherans held that the Word of God has power in itself (per se). No outside influence must enter the Word before it can exert its power and regenerate man. That the Word of God is powerful means that it is powerful intrinsically.1 This is what Quenstedt means when he says that power does not enter the Gospel from without before it can act upon man, but power is always in the Gospel,2 and it is what he and Calov mean when they claim that the effects which Scripture attributes to the Word of God postulate its intrinsic efficacy or power. Actus secundus praesupponit primum.3 However, from the fact that the Word is powerful inherently it does not follow that Scripture has this power independenter or ‘urspruenglich,’ as if the Word were the only or even the chief cause of regeneration, or as if the Word alone possessed this power. It is the Holy Spirit who converts man through the Word. Nor is the power in the Word of God of absolute necessity, as if God could not work without it. God has simply willed that His Word have this power. The power of the Spirit has been communicated to the Word so that it can be called the Word of Life; the Word has power according to God’s free arrangement (‘aus freywilliger Goettlicher Ordnung’), 1 Cor. 1. 21.4 Consistent with the idea that the Word of God is powerful intrinsically is the profession that the Word possesses this power apart from its use and before it is read and used by men. Starting with Gerhard, the dogmaticians teach in unmistakable terms that Scripture or the Word of God, by virtue of God’s ordination, possesses a certain communicated divine power (vis, virtus) even ante & extra usum.5 The tenacity with which they held to this doctrine and the unyielding insistence with which they retained the easily misunderstood phrase ‘ante & extra usum’ was due to the influence of the renegade Lutheran, Rathmann, who flourished during the first quarter of the seventeenth century. Rathmann taught that God converted sinners without the Word of God, that Scripture was a dead letter, a powerless thing. He distinguished between the inner and the outer Word of God. The outer Word, which was Scripture, was only a picture or witness (Zeugnis) of the inner Word, which was Christ. This outer Word in and of itself is only the natural meaning of the words (this means that Rathmann denied that there was an internal forma of Scripture); it is no more than a ‘Wegzeigner.’ Even when viewed against its appointed use (in actu secundo) the outer Word has no power; it is the Holy Spirit alone who converts man. Such views were branded by Calov and others as Schwenkfeldianism. In harmony with the Formula of Concord the Lutherans of the period of orthodoxy believed that there were two causes of man’s conversion, the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, and that in this connection the Word acted as a powerful means of grace. Such a doctrine was expressly denied by Rathmann.1 In 1621 Rathmann published a book expressing his ideas, called Vom Gnadenreich Christi, which caused a great furore among the orthodox Lutherans. He was opposed most vehemently by John Corvinus, who condemned him from his pulpit and agitated against him continually. In a book he urged the authorities to take action against Rathmann. The controversy was brought before the universities, and the faculty at Wittenberg, followed by the faculties at Jena, Helmstedt and Rostock, condemned Rathmann. The controversy ended with Rathmann’s death in 1628. Calov offers the following arguments in defence of the doctrine that the Word of God is powerful even ante usum: 2 (1) Scripture, by virtue of its divine origin, must be invested with divine efficacy, and this efficacy is intrinsic and present extra usum because Scripture is never not inspired, it is never merely a human word. (2) Scripture, the Word of God, according to its nature, is spirit and life and therefore endowed with divine efficacy also before and apart from its use. The power of the Word is, in the nature of the case, manifested in its use, but this is accidental to the Word; it does not condition the inherent properties of the Word. (3) The Word is the power of God and is to be understood as having this power in itself. It is true that the power of God is only in God essentially ( & essentialiter), but through communication this divine power inheres also in the Word and the Sacraments, which, according to the unique dispensation of God, work as organs which are not impotent but efficient. Calov then follows with the same passages upon which he based his other conjectures concerning the efficacy of the Word, e.g. those passages where the word is likened to snow, rain, wine, food etc. (4) The Word has been designated by God to achieve certain spiritual results, namely, illumination and regeneration. If the Word enjoys this power only in usu, the power to effect these results depends upon the contingency that the Word is used, and consequently the Word itself has no such power at all. If the Word of God does not have the power intrinsically to produce conversion and regeneration, it follows that the Word of God is a dead letter intrinsically, and conversion and regeneration occur only when the Word, or Scripture, is elevated to this capacity by an outside influence in usu legitimo. But this usus legitimus, as already said, is only accidental to the Word. Calov has been severely criticized for the way in which he has gone about proving his contention that the Word of God is powerful extra usum. It may certainly be said that, in a certain sense, the old dogmaticians’ discussion of this question is vain, since the Scriptures and the Word of God can scarcely be thought of abstractly as if completely divorced from their appointed use, and since, according to the reasons offered for their position regarding the hypothetical necessity of Scripture, the dogmaticians themselves imply that the existence of Scripture is due to its purpose, which is God’s purpose. Against Calov, Movius and others protested that there was no Word of God extra usum, just as there was no sacrament extra usum. Calov answered: 1 ‘The essence of the sacraments consists in their administration and cannot exist except in use. But the Word of God does not consist essentially in the act of meditation, reading and preaching: these are accidental to the Word. When these have passed away, the Word will endure forever.’ This idea of Calov’s 1 that the reading and preaching of the Word of God are only accidental to it is bitterly denounced by Gruetzmacher as logical nonsense, as a thoroughly unreligious, un-Lutheran proposition which entirely forgets the ‘for us’ of Scripture which deserves the utmost emphasis.2 I wonder if Gruetzmacher has not misunderstood Calov at this point? When Calov says that preaching and reading are accidental to the Word of God, he does not mean that these activities are purely incidental or fortuitous: he means only that the same properties inhere in God’s Word ante usum as in usu; the Word of God does not become the Word of God or change in usu. The context of Calov’s statement bears this out. Calov is answering the objection that there is no Word of God extra usum. He replies that the Word of God is present extra usum. It exists in God originaliter; it exists in the Bible repraesentative; it exists in the minds of men subjectively (it is in a man’s heart although he may not be thinking of it). The fact that he says that reading and preaching are accidental to the Word of God means here only that there is a Word of God before it is put into use, and elsewhere 3 it means only that this Word is divine and powerful intrinsically. If Calov’s terminology in this matter is bad, it is of little consequence. Gruetzmacher’s remark that Calov here has completely forgotten the personal Tor us’ purpose of God’s Word would have been quite pertinent had it been couched in less superlative terms. It is wrong to dissociate Scripture from its purpose. But Calov, indeed, does not ignore the purpose of Scripture in the present discussion. He points to the purpose of the Word of God as evidence that inherent efficacy obtains in this Word.4 The controversy with Rathmann settled the problem of the Word and its efficacy in Lutheran circles, but this matter was still handled in different ways by different theologians. Strangely enough, Dannhauer’s treatment of the question is carried out in a very different spirit from that of Calov, Quenstedt, Hollaz and the other dogmaticians after Gerhard. It appears as if Dannhauer has no fear whatever of Rathmann’s opinions. He says 1 that Scripture is efficacious ‘in its appointed use/ that is, when it is heard and meditated upon and preached. Viewed as deposited in the pages of the Bible, it is powerless to exert any supernatural action. Scripture can be said to be a powerful organ of God only in its use.2 On the basis of these and other statements 3 it might appear that there is a basic doctrinal disagreement between Dannhauer and his brethren in Wittenberg. Gruetzmacher 4 is convinced that there is such a difference. He says that Dannhauer, like Luther, taught that Scripture was powerful (‘kraeftig’) only in its use. He says that, according to Dannhauer, Scripture derives its power from the Holy Spirit who comes upon it from without and who is always present in it when it is being used in any way. He says that Dannhauer’s thoughts on this question are the same as those expressed by Chemnitz and the Formula of Concord and are witness to the fact that Luther’s doctrine of the Word had persisted down to that day. But is there a real difference between Dannhauer and the other theologians of the orthodox school? Quenstedt,5 like the other dogmaticians, distinguishes between the power of the Word before its action on man, in itself (in actu primo), and during or in its action on man (in actu secundo). The so-called actus primus is not an action at all, but only the capacity of the Word to accomplish spiritual results ( potentia operandi); it is the which Paul speaks of in Rom. 1. 16. The actus secundus is the actual working of the Word upon man which Paul calls the in Eph. 3. 7. The Word of God, because it is the Word of God, has power even in actu primo. Speaking of the Word of God, Hollaz 1 remarks that the power (vis) of an instrument consists in the fact that it is appointed to be used (in ordinatione ad usum), even though it is not actually in use, just as an eye has the power to see, even though it sees nothing at some given moment. Would Dannhauer find fault with these remarks of Quenstedt and Hollaz? Not at all. He himself remarks 2 that a distinction must be observed between the power to work and the actual working of the Word. Dannhauer here means the same as does Hollaz when he later says that although the Word of God accomplishes nothing apart from its use and exerts no power, its power is nevertheless not purposeless and it is not thereby a dead letter.3 Gruetzmacher is not correct when he says that Dannhauer taught that Scripture was powerful only in its use. Nor is there any basis for his saying that Scripture, or the Word of God, according to Dannhauer, received its power from the Spirit who comes upon it when it is in use. All the dogmaticians, as we shall see, believed that the Word derived its power from its union with the Holy Spirit. There is no reason to think that Dannhauer, unlike the other dogmaticians, conceived of this union as sporadic. Gruetzmacher is right when he states that Dannhauer’s views concerning the efficacy of the Word correspond closely to those of Chemnitz, but neither did Chemnitz hold that Scripture was impotent in se, that it had power in its use only. Chemnitz says: 4 ‘The Word of God has in itself [in se] the spiritual and life-giving power to regenerate man.’ That these words of Chemnitz’ also express Dannhauer’s conviction is shown by the fact that Dannhauer quotes 1 this statement of Chemnitz’. Now it cannot be denied that Dannhauer’s whole emphasis in his treatment of the efficacy of the Word differs noticeably from that of the other dogmaticians. He says that Scripture extra usum has no ability to produce supernatural results, but here he is speaking of Scripture as a book, according to its materia (in membrane out charta). I believe that the difference between Dannhauer and the other orthodox Lutheran teachers on this point lies in the fact that Dannhauer refuses, even hypothetically, to consider or think of Scripture or the Word of God apart from its use and work. One must suppose that Dannhauer did this consciously, whereas Luther and Chemnitz before him probably did so unconsciously. Dannhauer did this no doubt also to preserve in its proper emphasis and setting the ‘for us’ purpose of Scripture which Gruetzmacher talks about, and perhaps also to avoid much of the needless and endless scholastic argumentation which the other Lutherans, especially Calov, had engaged in in their writings. But had Dannhauer or any of the other orthodox theologians of the day supposed for a moment that there was not full doctrinal harmony on this point, they would surely have mentioned such a fact in their writings; these men were incapable of palliating or ignoring doctrinal differences. Another factor which confuses this issue is the way in which the old Lutheran teachers use the word ‘efficacia.’ One would ordinarily think of this word as connoting active power, the power of a thing in operation. Now if the dogmaticians had used the word with such a meaning, they would be promoting an idea that the Word of God acts ante usum’ which is absurd. But to the dogmaticians, and even to Dannhauer at times, efficacia is merely a synonym of vis or potentia. Hollaz says1 that the Word has an inner vis, or efficacia, even extra usum. But then he goes on to say that this efficacia is exerted only when Scripture is rightly used, when it is read or preached or heard. Calov says 2 that the power of the Word is of such a nature that in actu primo it is able to work. This, by the way, is all he or any of the dogmaticians means when they speak of an efficacia extra usum. Calov also speaks of ‘intrinseca efficacia’ 3 and equates it with intrinseca potentia. It is unfortunate that Hollaz 4 has likened the power of the Word to the power of the sun which has the power to give light even during an eclipse, inasmuch as this analogy, when pressed, does not express his views. The sun is actually generating heat and light in an eclipse; the Word is inactive when it is not in use. The analogy with a seed which is used by all the dogmaticians is better. There is a precedent for this analogy in Scripture. Barth 5 disapproves of any analogy being employed in this connection—-as if analogy with the physical had to or needed to exist in this case. But the dogmaticians never imply that these analogies were essential to the discussion. It was the polemical situation against Rathmann and Movius which brought them to make use of these analogies in the way they did—and they employed these analogies not to prove anything, but only to illustrate their doctrine—and to term the power of the Word a vis hyperphysica. If one bears in mind the dogmaticians’ teaching that there is a constant union of the Word (which is also and always in Scripture) and the Spirit of God, so that the Word which is at all times in existence (even ante usum) is inherently and perpetually powerful, and consequently requires no nova elevatio, as if some outside influence needed to be added, analogies like those employed are not irrelevant, and their whole doctrine gives the appearance of being consistent and impressive, as Barth says. If it is denied that the Word of God exists extra usum or that the Spirit is at all times in union with the Word, the whole structure of their doctrine falls. 3. THE UNION OF THE WORD AND THE SPIRIT Now we consider the reason why, according to all the orthodox Lutheran theologians, the Word of God is powerful. There is a perpetual union of the Spirit and the Word.1 Every spiritual accomplishment in man is brought about by the Holy Spirit, who works only through the Word. The sanctifying work of the Spirit cannot be separated from the efficacy of the Word. The Spirit does not choose to work apart from the Word of God.2 Quenstedt says: 3 ‘God does not work separately without the Word, nor the Word separately without God, but God works with the Word and through the Word, and the Word works with God and from power divinely bestowed.’ The work of conversion and all spiritual work must properly be attributed to the Spirit, but this fact does not reduce the Word to an inanimate instrument which has no intrinsic power. The Word is called a hammer (Jer. 23. 29), a shepherd’s staff (Ps. 23. 4), and a sceptre (Ps. 45. 6), all of which are passive instruments, but it is also called a living and incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1. 23), a fire (Jer. 23. 29), rain and dew (Deut. 32. 2), a lamp giving light (Ps. 119. 105), and honey (Ps. 119. 103). Hence by virtue of divine ordination and communication Scripture and the Word of God are intrinsically endowed with power to regenerate and convert. And yet this power of the Word is subordinate and dependent on the moving cause of all spiritual life, just as the eye is not inanimate and yet is dependent on the mind to see.4 In this connection the dogmaticians point out that the work of the Holy Spirit and the work of the Word of God are not two works, nor merely a union of two distinct operations, but are one work: they are a unity of effect (unitas ) and a unity of operation (unitas ). The Holy Spirit does not do one thing and the Word another in working out God’s saving purpose in man; by the same action they perform one work and accomplish one effect, just as the mind and eyes see by one and not by different actions.1 It is only by virtue of the fact that God is in the Word that this Word has the power to accomplish anything spiritual.2 The Word is powerless if God is not present in it.3 Any Word which proceeds from God brings God with it. All this is very important. If the Spirit is separated from the Word of God, it is no longer the Word of God.4 And because God is always with His Word, the power of the Word is the power of God.5 Finally, the Word is powerful simply because it is the Word of very God, because its author is God Himself and not men, and because it is inspired by Him.1 Because it is God’s Word, God cannot be separated from it. It was only after the controversy with Rathmann that the union of the Spirit and the Word of God was emphasized and spoken of in clear terms by the Lutheran teachers. Hutter, for instance, who wrote before this controversy, never speaks of such a union, and in fact makes a number of statements which appear to suggest that he would not favour such a teaching. He says, for example, that the power of Scripture cannot effect conversion and faith without the added power and operation of the Holy Spirit; 2 that the whole operation of conversion must be attributed to the Holy Spirit alone; 3 that the doctrine of the Gospel in itself can accomplish nothing—the Holy Spirit must be added who employs this Gospel to bring about faith;4 that the Word of God cannot be grasped or accepted unless enlightenment of the Spirit is added.5 On the basis of these last three statements Gruetzmacher 6 observes that Hutter teaches much which is found in the later tenets of Rathmann. He remarks that, according to Hutter’s presentation, the Bible in itself is not a means of grace; the Spirit must be added to it. It would be a simple matter to conclude on the basis of these statements of Hutter’s that there is a fundamental difference between his teaching and that of the later dogmaticians on this point, but such a judgment might be premature. Let us examine these rather un-Lutheran statements of Hutter’s in their wider context, in the light of other statements which he makes regarding the relation between Word and Spirit. As mentioned above, he says that the Word cannot convert unless the power of the Spirit is added. Does he wish to teach here that the Word has no power to convert, that it has no power in se to work spiritual results? Not necessarily. He teaches clearly that the Word of God begets faith, that the Church as a number of believers owes its very being to the Word of God.1 He teaches that the Word is always an organ which is able to create faith and which the Spirit employs to this end.2 And he teaches that the Word has power in itself to produce spiritual effects in man.3 Again, as pointed out above, Hutter holds that man’s whole conversion must be attributed to the Holy Spirit alone. Does such an idea give the Word any place in man’s ordo salutis? Does it not deny all power to the Word? Not at all. Not only does the Formula of Concord teach that the Spirit alone is responsible for man’s conversion, but the later dogmaticians, even Calov,4 say so as well. But neither the Formula of Concord nor Hutter nor Calov means that the Word of God is inherently impotent or that it is not a cause along with the Spirit in man’s conversion. Moreover, the Formula of Concord says: 5 ‘Therefore, before the conversion of man, there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Spirit, whereby he works conversion.’ Hutter, consistent with his own rigid confessional position, dutifully follows the confession on this point.1 Neither Hutter nor the Formula of Concord nor any of the later Lutheran theologians intimated that the Word was a cause of conversion coordinate with the Holy Spirit, and yet, in spite of these many similarities between Hutter’s doctrine and that of his followers, the conclusion on the basis of at least one of his statements already alluded to is inevitable that a difference exists. The statement reads as follows: ‘The Gospel does not perform or accomplish this [conversion] in and of itself. Unless something else is added to it, the Gospel in itself, viewed and regarded alone, only tells about faith in Christ and only offers life to believers, and beyond this accomplishes nothing. Considered alone as doctrine and proclamation it confers neither faith nor life. Otherwise everyone who hears the Gospel would come to faith and through faith to life. But something else must be added, namely, the Holy Spirit who employs the doctrine and the preaching of the Gospel as an organ and sort of means of inciting faith and bestowing life upon all those who do not persistently resist His operation.’ 2 The inescapable inference of these words is that the Spirit must come upon the Word from without before it can exert any influence. This statement implies that even the preaching of the Word, even the Word in actu secundo, is not at all times accompanied by the Spirit of God. It certainly teaches that the efficacia of the Gospel is not a potentia existing even ante usum, but at most a salutary operatio in the elect.3 Such a teaching, and in particular the inference that the Spirit could be absent from the preached Word, would definitely not have been acceptable to the later Lutherans, and it seems strange that they did not criticize it.1 Hutter is more careless in his treatment of the efficacy of the Word, which is understandable because he wrote before Rathmann. Controversy has a peculiar way of making statements which to one age seem perfectly harmless appear to a later and more circumspect age dangerous and even heretical. Hutter would, of course, have rejected much of what Rathmann taught. But it is an undeniable fact, as Gruetzmacher has pointed out, that his doctrine approaches that of Rathmann at times; Rathmann did not hesitate to support some of his theses with quotations from Hutter. This may account for the fact that Gerhard was reluctant to condemn Rathmann, and for a long while thought that the controversy was merely due to misunderstanding over terminology. The difference between Hutter and the later dogmaticians seems to be basically this: to Hutter it was not only hypothetically possible but actually true that the Word of God could at times be without the Spirit; to the later Lutherans of this period even the hypothetical possibility of such a circumstance was unthinkable. It is true that Calov, for instance, speaks of the Word as powerless if it is alone. But the Word is never alone. Take the Spirit from God’s Word and it is no longer God’s Word; it has become a human word.2 This is true of the Word of God whether viewed as existing in Himself or inspired in men of God, whether recorded in Scripture, preached or treasured in the heart of the believer. Calov is unable to think of the Word of God without the Spirit. God’s Word, simply because it is God’s Word, is associated with the Spirit and possesses divine power.3 Here we see the great difference between Calov and Rathmann, namely, in their conception of the Word of God. To Calov Scripture was Deus loquens in the same way as He spoke at Sinai or the mount of transfiguration, and Calov understood the Word of God in a much more comprehensive sense than did Rathmann. But in this Calov and Hutter are one. Why did Hutter speak as he did? Gruetzmacher suggests1 that Hutter, like Rathmann, is attempting to solve the problem of why the Word does not always accomplish its desired effect upon all men. The words of Hutter quoted above, ‘otherwise everyone who hears the Gospel would come to faith and through faith to life.’ seem to support this idea. The burden of these words is that the Spirit entering upon the Word accounts for the fact that some accept the Word and are converted and others do not. Thus the cur alii alii non question is solved, it is answered in God. But according to Lutheran theology the question cannot and must not be answered at all. Any answer will result either in a denial of gratia universalis, as is the case here, or of sola gratia, and both these principles must be upheld. The orthodox dogmaticians, therefore, in accordance with the second article of the Formula of Concord, teach and confess that God alone is responsible for man’s conversion and salvation, but man and man alone is responsible for his own perdition. Hence, if the Word of God is not accepted, the fault does not lie in the Word of God or in the Spirit who works through the Word, but only in the stubborn resistance of man.2 The efficacy of the Word extends to all men everywhere.3 It is always the purpose of God and His Word that all men should be converted and saved.4 But the efficacy of the Word is not irresistible.5 Hutter’s words above can only be explained by saying that he has in this case become very careless, for later in the same paragraph he says that man’s resistance is the cause of his not accepting the Word and of his non-conversion.1 The dogmaticians were opposed to every kind of enthusiasm, to every idea of an immediate illumination or an immediate conversion. In accordance with the fifth article of the Augsburg Confession they held that the Holy Spirit does not come to men except through the external Word.2 Hutter speaks for all the dogmaticians when he says: 3 Tn every conversion, whether violent or gentle, the divine Word is the one means through which the Holy Spirit wishes to be effectual in our conversion.’ Enlightenment, conversion and sanctification from beginning to end are brought about through the Word of God.4 The Church lives by the Word of God, and where there is no Word there is no Church.5 When Rathmann contends that the naked Scripture left to itself can accomplish nothing, he is fighting a battle without an adversary, for the Lutherans denied that Scripture was ever left to itself; the Spirit was always in the Word, and in its every form.6 God will not deal with men apart from His Word. One will not fail to see the importance of this fact in the old Lutheran doctrine of the efficacy of the Word of God. 4. THE GOSPEL AS THE MEANS OF GRACE It is the conviction of all the dogmaticians that only the Gospel, properly speaking, is a means of grace. They often speak generally of the Word being a means of grace, but they mean the Gospel. When the Bible says that we are born again by the Word of God it is speaking only of the Word of the Gospel.1 The law is not a means of grace; it cannot incite faith; it can only kill.2 If the law leads a sinner to Christ, it does so only indirectly by showing him his lost condition, driving him to despair and thereby showing him a good reason for seeking Christ.3 Scripture is often spoken of as a means of grace, but this may be said by virtue of the fact that Scripture contains the Gospel, that the redemption in Christ is the heart and message of all the Scriptures; Scripture as such is not a means of grace, for all of Scripture is not Gospel.4 And why is the Gospel a means of grace? Because Christ crucified is its message. Because Christ is its essence, soul and centre. Because only that message of Christ can restore hope and the very image of God.5 The Gospel is a means of grace because it brings Christ Himself to those who hear it. Calov says 1 that the Word of God as it is written and proclaimed is powerful and accomplishes great things by virtue of its union with the personal Word, who is one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. In their discussion of the power of the Word the old Lutherans emphasized its Christological content. They emphasized the fact that Christ was not in the Scriptures or the Word of God symbolically, like the sign of something which is signified () significative, objective, ut significatum in significante), as if He could not come to us in Scripture, but Christ confronts us in the Word, the Word of God truly brings Christ. The Faculties of Jena and Wittenberg wrote the following regarding this point: 2 ‘Until the present time we have been taught in the churches and in the schools that Christ was the purpose for God recording Scripture (Jn. 5. 39), that He is the foundation (Eph. 2. 20), the kernel, the star, the treasure and shrine of Scripture, the one man of whom Scripture testifies, to whom it directs us, whom at one time it proclaimed and promised and whom later according to His person and work and merits it makes known and explains and bestows upon us in such a way that we receive Christ with his sufferings and death from the Scriptures.’ Who does not find Christ in the Scriptures may just as well not read them. For Scripture not only speaks of Christ; it brings Christ. ‘Was Gott und Christum mitbringet/ das bringet ihn mit effective.’ The Word, then, is a means of grace because it brings Christ, because it is the proclamation of the counsel of God concerning our redemption and salvation,3 because God confronts us in the Word and reveals Himself in the Word.4 There are, therefore, as I have intimated above, basically three reasons for the old Lutheran teachers’ attributing efficacy to the Word of God: (1) the fact that its author is very God, (2) the fact that there exists a permanent union of Word and Spirit, and (3) the fact that the Word proclaims and actually brings and bestows Christ.