Full Text for Theological Observer (Text)

OCTOBER 1980 Announcement ................................................................ 197 Chemnitz and the Book of Concord ........... J.A.O. Preus 200 . ............................. Confessional Music Daniel G Reuning 2 1 3 ............... The Roots of Theological Liberalism E.F. Klug 218 The Doctrine of Biblical Authority in the Theology of Henry Eyster . ............ . Jacobs C George Fry and John M Drickamer 225 Theological 0 bserver ....................................................... 234 Homiletical Studies ............................................................ 244 Book Reviews ................................................................. 287 Books Received ................................................................. 290 THEOLOGICAL OBSERVER A CALL FOR ADDENDA TO THE FORMULA OF CONCORD "Alas, gone is the horseman and the chariot of Israel." In this way Melanchthon solemnly broke the news to the students at Wittenberg that Luther was dead. Gone now, too, from the generation after the great Reformer, are the intre~id formulators of the Formula of Concord, chiefly Chemnitz and Andreae. With others, including stalwart laymen like Prince August of Saxony, they had so much to do with bringing concord and peace to the troubled Lutheran church in 1577. "What matter?' Philip Schaff would ask. By his estimate the Formula of Concord was the "Formula of Discord," highly esteemed only by "high orthodoxy" and destined for total oblivion, even within "the great body of the Lutheran Church" itself. It was his jaundiced view that "upon the whole (it) did more harm than good," and that "history never repeats itself," by which he means that no future generation would ever again take it seriouslv as a confessional standard. Had Schaff prophesied correctly, there would have been no life expectancy at all for Confessional Lutheran theology any time in the future. Yet the nineteenth- century distinguished itself, especially in America, with a remarkable resurgence of the Lutheran Confessions, especially the Formula of Concord. Melanchthon had pleaded poignantly, as hesorrowfully addressed the students: "Let us then hold dear the momory of the man [Luther] and the doctrine in the very manner in which he delivered it to us." History has repeated itself. There have always been those who rallied to the colors around the old flag unfurled by Luther at the time of the Reformation. Each generation must take up anew thesolemn charge left to it, to proclaim it, uphold it, defend it, "the faith once delivered unto the saints" The year 1977 saw a number of appeals calling for the same kind of rallying to "'the old flag," as C.F.W. Walther called the Formula of Concord at the time of the 1877 tricentennial celebration. What was the meaning and intent of the Confessors at Augsburg in 1530? Nothing more, nothing less, than to set forth the doctrine "based solidly on the divine Scriptures," "as the ancient consensus which the universal and orthodox church of Christ has believed." (Preface, Book of Concord) This stance the Formula of Concord reasserted. The spirit of seculansm, humanism, and syncretism grips our present day. Even though evangelicaI theology has come in for more attention - in fact, resurgence - it still cannot be claimed that there is loud, clear, and wide-spread clamor for a return to theological integrity after t he manner of the 1577 and 1877 Confessional theologians. It would be naive to conclude that an urgency is felt, even within Confessionally-minded Lutheran churches. There is no great clamor for the church to speak pointedly, for the sake of concord and unity, to the issues troubling modernday Christianity, and especially Lutheran theology. Everyone knows the trouble areas. The doctrine of the Word, Holy Scripture, is widely and wildly disputed. Higher criticism continues to take its toll. Scripture's authoritative voice as the inspired Word of God bounces off seemingly deaf ears. Ecumenical, syncretistic, and unionistic fevers have so gripped the churches that the doctrince of the church itself as taught in Scripture is hardly recognizable. Theological Observer 23 5 The result is that no one seems to know, or, worse still, care about the proper basis for church fellowship. Does it have anything to do with agreement "in the doctrine and all its articles" (FC X1731)? Does anyone still: think in those terms, or are they completely outmoded and out of tune with the spirit of our times? These are serious questions. They require answers. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, in convention at Anaheim in 1975, briefly considered Resolu- tion 3-36 calling for an "international council" to produce a "Twentieth-Century Formula of Concord." The resolution died without being acted upon. Missouri's 1977 convention at Dallas languidly adopted Resolution 3-01, in which among other things it took note of the four-hundredth anniversary of the Formula of Concord. Missing was some of the old fire that electrified the church a century ago. The 1979 convention of the Missouri Synod, at St. Louis, was able to muster a little more enthusiasm for the Confessions. In Resolution 3-04 it called for implimentation of celebrations to mark the four-hundredth anniversary of the Book of Concord and the four-hundred-and-fiftieth of the Augsburg Confession in 1980. Program suggestions have since appeared to help the con- gregations plan appropriate observances. It is hard to gauge their success at this point. There appears to be little hope that they will set the Lutheran world and Christianity in general on fire. There are positive sides to the story, fortunately. All has not been bad news for the Formula of Concord in our day. Various publications have appeared. They aim to steer the reader back into the Confessions. Among them are Getting into the Formula of Concord (Klug- Stahlke), Formulators of the Formula of Concord (Jungkuntz), Andreae and the Formula of Concord (Kolb), Getting into the Theology of Concord (Preus), Getting into the Story of Concord (Scaer), A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord (Preus, Rosin, and others ), all published by Concordia Publishing House. The Evangelical Lutheran Synod produced a similarly helpful series on the Lutheran Con- fessions under the title IBelieve, the whole seriesablyand succinctly written by Bjarne W. Teigen. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod likewise was busy, with various authors marking the anniversaries of the Formula of Concord, Luther's Catechisms, and other works. So, from the point of view of literary production by conservative Lutheran synods and their publishing houses, there have been efforts to spark useful anniversary observances. But what about the churches, the pastors, the people? Does the flag still fly- the flag that says there is a cause which is still worth fighting for? Here the enthusiasm seems to be somewhat spotty, the response meager. However, many concerned congregations and their pastors have done in-depth study of the Formula of Concord or the Augsburg Confession or both during this anniversary period. Now from Germany the heartland of the Reformation, there sounds a still small voice that pleads for "addenda" to the Formula of Concord, addenda that will address contemporary issues facing the Lutheran church in our day. 'Such a statement should present in aunited manner, what is required today on behalf of Holy Scripture and of the Holy Christian Church," states the venerable dean of Lutheran theologians in Germany, Dr. William M. Oesch, long-time professor at the Oberursel theological seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Free Church. He notes that the stimulus can hardly come from Europe any longer, since "too much of the Confession has disappeared in western and eastern German." So he looks to the younger churches, particularly those in America, and specifically the Missouri Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (Norwegian), and the 236 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, for leadership at this time. "How is the Committee to do the final writing?" he asks. "ln a sence like Andreae, Chemnitz, etc.," by selected theologians, by men who still have a concern for the Confessions, from these various Lutheran bodies, preferably not from the officialdom. "Finally we must then secure one Missourian, and one WELS i ELS man, as well as one European man to be the 'public relations men' to get the Gnes~o-churches us such to take that final joint public action of affixing their signatures with date to the ADDENDA," and then arranging for themWto be solemnly printed in an American and in a German edition of the F.C., or better, Book of Concord." A grand idea? Wishful thinking on the part of an aged veteran who has lost touch with reality? Perhaps. But before leaping to hasty conclusions, let us sit back and consider the proposal with calm objectivity, as well as a spirit of fairnessand deep concern for divided Luthern theology. Is Dr. Oesch not right in stating that it is the doctrine of Holy Scripture and the doctrine of the Church, especially as the latter also concerns the knotty question of fellowship, which have sorely divided Lutheran churches of our day - also those who have a history of Confessional commitment and integrity? Are there not, then, addenda on these two matters, as he says, which need to be considered by us in our day? Is it not entirely feasible that the pattern displayed in the negotiations, discussions, and formulations of the Chemnitz-Andreae era is still viable today? Oesch finds starting-points in things like Getting into the Formula of Concordand the ELS 1977 convention essay on the Formula of Concord (Tjernagel). His plea is that we seize the opportunity, while the iron is in the fire, and do something - not just anything! - but somethingthat directlygets at the two matters which he has isolated carefully for present day attention. Some may be troubled by the idea of adding anything to the Confessions. They find that suggestion repugnant. But is it realistic? Has not the story of the origin of the Confessions been one of pressure upon the church for answers against threatening heresies and false teachings that struck at the church's jugular vein, the doctrine it has received from God Himself? Few, if any, of the Confessions were written to be new Confessions as such. If they became that, they earned that esteem by their own merit. Nor need the proposed "addenda" be written in any other spirit. Time can only tell what standing it will have in the church, as it attempts to meet the contemporary challenges. More than that cannot be expected. But the threat is now there. Lutheran theology is being sorely tried and tested on at least two fronts. Confusion and a spirit of malaise as regards these issues slips more and more like a pall over the churches and the clergy. Is this not the right time, the kairos, for speaking out? Would our silence at a time like this serve our Godand His Word? Edmund Schlink seems to catch the urgency of the moment well when he states (Theoiogy of the Lurheran Confessions, p. 31): Even the most solemn reaffirmation of the Confessions may be a denial of them, if the errors of the day are passed over in silence. . . At the very least the church, confronted with new heresies, will have to furnish up-to-date and binding interpretations of her official Confessions. But also beyond this we must soberly reckon with the possibility, perhaps even the necessity, of meeting the invasion of new errors with the formulation and validation of new Confessions. Andreae and Chemnitz had their critics and detractors. So did Prince August. But under God their valiant efforts prevailed. Can we doubt that the present call from a modernday "Andreae" in Oberursel, Germany, is worthy of our most 238 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAI, QUARTERLY 4. Dr. Moellering is rightly desirous of preserving the self-authenticating nature of Scripture from any slight."here is no antithesis, however. between the self-authentication and external authentication of Holy Scripture. Christianity (pace Barth and Bultmann) is so historical a faith that its Lord Himself deigned to verify His Gospel by means of His post-resurrection appearances. Likewise, the Christian church confesses the self-authentication of no scriptures for which it lacks historical evidence of their divine derivation. Indeed, its self-authenticating Scripture itself often appeals to instances of historical authentication (e-g., John 20:30-31; 21 :24; 2 Thess. 3: 17). There is no sligfit, therefore, to Biblical self-authentication when the church receives as prophetic, and hence as Scripture, only those books written or authorized by the prophets of the Old Testament era and the apostles of the New. Thus, the Blessed Martin Chemnitz asserts concerning those books inspired by the Holy Spirit: "But in order that this whale necessary matter might be firmly established against all impostures, God chose certain definite persons that they should write and adorned them with many miracles and divine testimonies that there should be no doubt that what they wrote wasdi~inelyinspired."~I)r. MoeHeringpoints out, to be sure, that "we can no longer hear the apostolic voice authenticating Scripture."Io Chemnitz, however, explains that this fact presents no problem, since we possess the testimony of reliable witnesses as to which writings emanate from the authors whom God commended to his people be means of special testimonies: Finally those divinely inspired writing were at the time of their writing laid before, delivered, and commended to the church with public attesta- tion in order that she might. by exercising the greatest care and foresight, preserve them uncorrupted, transmit them as from hand to hand, and commend them to posterity. And as the ancient church at the time of Moses, Joshua, and the prophets, so also the primitive church at the time of the apostles was able to testify with certainty which writings were divinely inspired . . . This witness of the primitive church concerning the divinely inspired writings was later transmitted to posterity by a perpetual succession from hand to hand and diligently preserved in reliable histories of antiquity in order that the subsequent church might be the custodian of the witness of the primitive church concerning the Scripture. There is therefore a very great difference between (1) the witness of the primitivechurch which was at the time of the apostles and (2) the witness of the church which followed immediately after the time of the apostles and which had received the witness of the first church and (3) the witness of the present church concerning the Scripture. For if the church, both that whichis now and that which was before, can show the witness ofthose who received and knew the witness of the first church concerning the genuine writings, we believe her as we do a witness who proves his statements. But she has no power to establish or to decide anything concerning the sacred writing for which she cannot produce reliable documents from the testimony of the primitive church. These things are undeniably true, and the whole dispute can be most correctly understood from this basis." 5. It seems that in reading my book Dr. Moellering gets an "uncomfortable feeling that the apostles have almost taken over for the Holy Spirit."I2 It isdiffi- cult to respond to a feeling, but I hope that 1 can relieve Dr. Moellering's discomfort by assuring him that I ascribe as much significance as I do to the apostles for the very reason that I esteem them to have been the mouths, hands, Theological Observer 239 and pens of the Holy Spirit Himself (to use the terminology of the old dogmati- cians). I do hold, moreover, that the work of the Holy Spirit is considerably wider than His role as the giver of prophetic gifts to and through the apostles. My monograph necessarily dwelt upon one particular aspect of the Spirit's activity, but even within its pages one can find evidence of my belief in other phases of His work. I affirm, for example, that "we know that no onecan believe thegospel except by the operation of the Holy Spirit in his heart (1 Cor. 12:3)."13 6. I agree with Dr. Moellering that we must respect the Holy Spirit's sovereignty (so long as that term be understood in a Lutheran sense).I4 I do not assert that God is incapable of bestowing the same prophetic gifts upon us that He bestowed upon His prophets and apostles of old. Nevertheless, He has chosen not to do so, and He has revealed to us through His prophets and apostles the signifiance of His decision. 7. I also concur with Dr. Moellering that "the purpose of the prophetic gifts cannot be narrowly restricted to authentication of the apostolic mi~sion."'~ Indeed, I spend eight pages in my book discussing the other purposes of prophecy and speaking in unlearned languagesL6 Dr. Moellering-'s citation of I Corinthians 14:4, however, is not relevant, since the clause cited is a statement of mere fact. rather than of purpose. The Corinthians who had the ability ro speak in unlearned languages were using this gift to edify themselves; but it does not follow from their practice that the Holy Spirit had given them this gift in order that they might selfishly use it for the purpose of self-edification. 8. Dr. Moellering disagrees with my interpretation of I Corinthians 133-13.l: Such a disagreement comes, of course, as no shock. My understanding of the passage differs, after all, from that which we are used to hearing and expounding. Indeed, when I began writing An Evaluarion, 1 still intended to defend an eschatological understanding, but subsequent study of the text compelled me to change my mind. There are certain elements in the passage which I simply could not reconcile with an eschatological viewpoint.Ix The seeming necessity of a different interpretation, moreover, still troubled me considerably until I discovered that a number of my older colleagues at Concordia Theological Seminary had already come to the understanding of the passage to which I was lead. Nevertheless. I fully expect that, even among those who accept the validity of my other lines of argument (any one of which is sufficient to establish the book's thesis), many readers will continue toentertain exegetical differences with me concerning I Corinthians 13. Dr. Moellering's objections to my interpretation, however, are not primarily exegetical. He does, indeed, affirm a different understanding of karhcis kaiepegnosthen, but he bases this affirmation on the prior assumption that the context is eschatological (by means of a quotation from the Anchor Bible). And he does, to be sure, make certain assertions concerning the interpretation of ro releion, prosi5pon pros proscpon, ek merow. arfi, and tote; but since he does not seek to substantiate these assertions individually, I assume that their authentication rests upon the general grounds which Dr. Moellering presents on behalf of the eschatological view of I Corinthians 13. One of these general arguments is historical; the other. dogmatic: a. The reviewer emphasizes that an eschatological interpretation is stan- dard. This I freely admit. (As far as Dr. Moellering's choice of citations is concerned, to be sure should not have considered Bengel or Conzelmann to be particularly reliable exegetes when it comes to eschatological matters; but I admit that one could easily produce citations from less dubious sources.) Neverthe- less, the reviewer would, of course, agree that all commentaries are, in the final 240 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY analysis, secondary sources and that we must be willing to approach the original text afresh. b. Dr. Moellering fears that a non-eschatological understanding of 1 Corinthians 13 produces "a kind of realized eschatology," by which he means a "premature anticipation of the e~chaton."'~ Now, most of what the reviewer says about this "realized eschatology" is evidently said not in response to An Evaluation, but in reaction to the charismatic movement20 and to a certain exegesis of verse 12 which is contrary to my own.21 The only sentence, so far as I can see, which ties together my interpretation of I Corinthians 13 and the "realized eschatology" described by Dr. Moellering is the one which assumes that in my mind "the meaning of kathds kai epegn6sthen of verse 12 is illustrated by the apostle's 'seeing himself in a clear mirror ("face to face") and so perceiving himself -as he is perceived by others' (Judisch, p. 50)."21 This assumption, however, has arisen from a misunderstanding of my words. I take kathos kai epegnbsthen as part of the "mirror illustrationn and not as the truth illustrated by it. In other words, the prophetic-apostolic word in its complete form is comparable to a clear mirror in which one can see what he really lookslike (that is, he perceives what other people perceive when they look at him). One may disagree with this figurative interpretation of the clause in question, but I am sure that no one will consider it an erasure of the dividing line between the present age and eternity. In a similar manner, after all, James compares the preached word to a mirror (James 1: 23-24), and we commonly call the second use of the law its "use as a mirror." One of the reasons, as a matter of fact, for my dissatisfaction with theeschato- logical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13 is the problem which it raises in regard to a proper distinction of the present and future ages - namely, by bringingfaith and hope into the sphere of eternity even though elsewhere Paul describes hope and faith as things which would be quite out of place in eternity (Rom. 8:24-25; 2 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 1 1:1).22 Those orthodox exegetes, of course, who adhere to an eschatological view of 1 Corinthians 13 give new definitions to "faithn and "hope" in this passage in order to resolve this tension. I should certainly consider it improper, therefore, to accuse such men of confounding the present age with the age to come. Nevertheless, the invention of new definitions for words of well- established meaning is scarcely a satisfactory procedure. 9. Another concern of Dr. Moellering is that in my exegesis of Daniel 9:24-27 1 distinguish between the "stopping up" and the "cutting off' of prophetic vision and that I call the prediction of this "stopping up" the explicit witness of DanieL23 Daniel himself, however, (by quoting the archangel Gabriel) predicates the verb hiitham ('stop up") of the noun hamn in the verse involved, so that his prediction of the stopping up of prophetic vision cannot logically be called anything less than explicit. So far from being artificial, moreover, the distinction between the meanings of the verbs &aham ("stop up") and karath ("cut off") differ so widely elsewhere in the Old Testament that it would be impossible to equate them in Daniel 924-27.24 10. Dr. Moellering feels that I should have concluded my study with "something more convincing" than an implicit testimony.25 His advice I take to be of a literary. rather than a theological, nature at this point; and the rhetori- cians do, indeed, teach that one ought to place his most persuasiveargumentsat the beginning and end of a speech or essay. I am, therefore, quite prepared to rearrange the chapters of my book in whatever order seems most elegant to those who surpass me in oratorical skill. (I am taking it for granted that Dr. Moellering Theological Observer 24 1 does not consider an implicit testimony to be less cogent per se than an explicit one, since our Lord Himself argues from implicit testimonies - e.g., Matthew 2231-32 - as does His church in the demonstration of such articles of faith as the triune Rature of God.) 11. Dr. Moellering considers the testimony of history to beless favourable to my thesis than An Evaluation would have it.26 It may well be that someone will produce citations which will compel me to modify statements that I have made in this portion of my book; this historical section is only an appendix, since the Word of God must ultimately be the sole norm of theology. At this point, however, Dr. Moellering's concern has evidently arisen from a misunder- standing of my words, since none of the citations made in this section of his review contradict anything said in the appendix to An Evaluation. I shall, therefore, confine myself to brief statements of the reasons why there is no conflict between the various citations in the review and my own observations in An Evaluation: in regard to Irenaeus, he refers to miracles in general rather than to any specific instance of a miracle (as I already noted in my book) and he refers in part to phenomena (e.g., exorcism) which I do not classify as prophetic gifts;?; as to Athanasius, he writes in the fourthcentury(when,as An Evaluationstates, "the most astonishing 'miracles' receive citati0n,"2~ although there is no reference anyway in the sentences quoted by Dr. Moellering to any specific instance) and the last quotation refers to exorcism; in regard to the Apostolic Constitutions, the date of publication, according to Dr. Moellering, is late in the fourth century and there is again no specific instance cited in the passages quoted;z9 in regard to Acts 5, my point of contrast was Christ and whereas this passage speaks about the Eleven; in regard to Acts 28, Paul lays claim directly to various miracles (e.g.. Romans 15:18-19) and indirectly to the miracles attributed to him by Luke (by setting his apostolicimprimatur on Luke- A~ts);~' in regard to Mark 16:17-18, it is not a record ofanything miraculous, but a prediction; in regard to Luther, he refers to a phenomenon which 1 have not classified as a prophetic gift. Dr. Moellering also thinks that 1 should have said more about Luther in the appendix to An Evaluation.32 The reviewer may be correct, but I cannot yet see how such an addition would have been relevant to the discussion. It is not quite accurate, however, to say that 1 leave "he reader in suspense concerning Luther," since I do quote his statement in the Smalcald Articles: "Accordingly we should and must maintain that God will not deal with us except through His external Word and Sacrament. Whatever is attributed to the Spirit apart from such Word and Sacrament is of the devi1."33 I have, admittedly, assumed this confessional affirmation to be representative of Lutheisviewpoint and have not yet seen the need to revise this assumption, especially since colleagues so familiar with the Reformer's thought as Dr. Robert Preus and the sainted Dr. Harry Huth have regarded my position as corresponding closely to that of Luther and the other Confessors.3' 12. A final concern of Dr. Moelleringisthat, by calling such gifts of the Spirit as faith, hope, and love His "ordinary gifts" to thechurch, I imply that these gifts are inferior to the more spectacular ones.35 Once again, I am happy to say, the problem is merely semantic. It is my impression that the ordinary meaning of the word "ordinary" is "customary; u~ual,"3~ rather than "inferior." Whenwe speak of the ordinary significance of a word, we do not mean its inferior significance; when we say that baptism is necessary to salvation under ordinary cir- cumstances, we do not mean that it is necessary only in inferior cases. I believe 242 CONCORDlA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY and confess, indeed, that ordinary things (e.g., words, water, bread, wine) are often the most important things in the world. 1 hope, then, that I have been able to alleviate the misgivings concerning An Evaluation expressed in "Charismata Reexamined"; most of them have arisen from gaps in communication between author and reviewer. In my estimation these misgivings evince valid theological concerns which I myself share, and so I have merely attempted to show that these concerns do not, in actuality, conflict with my conclusions. Exegetical differences will, of course, remain. Over the course of the centuries considerable diversity has obtained in the exegesis of numerous passages (aside from the sedes doctrinae) among capable theologians dedicated to a common confessional understanding of the articles of faith and a common rejection of contrary positions. In a similar manner, exegetical differences will doubtless remain among capable theologians dedicated to the common confessional principle that "God will not deal with us except through His external Word and Sacrament" and to the common rejection of contem- porary charismatic theology. FOOTNOTES 1. H. Armin Moellering, "Charismata Reexamined," Concordia Journal. V (1979), pp. 178-183. 2. Douglas Judisch, An Evaluation of Claims to the Charismatic Gifts (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1978). 3. Moellering, p. 178. 4. Judisch, pp. 13- 14. 5. Moellering, p. 178. 6. E.g., Judisch, p. 59. 7. Moellering, p. 179. 8. /bid. 9. Martin Chemnitz. Examination of the Council of Trent, trans. Fred Kramer, I (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), p. 176. 10. Moellering, p. 179. I I. Chemnitz, pp. 176177. 12. Moellering, pp. 179-1 SO. 13. Judisch, p. 27. 14. Moellering, p. 180. With regard to some necessary restrictions on the use of the term "sovereignty" in relation to God, see David P. Scaer, "The Charismatic Threat," CTQ, XLI, 3 (July 1977), pp. 52-54 (e.g., "The Holy Spirit can neither contradict Himself nor act contrary to His essence."). IS. /bid 16. Judisch, pp. 36-43. 17. Moellering, p. 180.(1 amnot as yet aware of the reason for the insertion of a "(sic)" in the quotation from An Evduation.) 18. Judisch, pp. 47-48. 19. Moellering, p. 180. 20. /bid., paragraph 4, last four sentences. Alternatively, these sentences may be a description of "realized eschatology" in general. 2 I. Moellering, p. 180., last two paragraphs. I am not sure oft he exact nature of this particular exegesis, but it seems to involve taking epignosomai kathos kai epegnosthgn to mean "I shall know God fully even as God has fully known me," taking blepomen to mean "we see God," and then assigning these phenomena a place in the present age. Probably we should also Theological Observer 243 understand the first sentence of paragraph four as relating to this same variety of interpretation; I take it that in this sentence Dr. Moellering is objecting to someone's suggestion that in the present aeon we can see God face to face and know God even as God has fully known us. If, on the other hand, this sentence is directed against my own position, it presumably arises from the same misunderstanding of my words that is evinced in sentence two of paragraph seven on page 180 (a misunderstanding which we shall now proceed to consider). 2 1 a. Moellering, p. 180. 22. Judisch, p. 47. 23. Moellering, p. 18 1. 24. Cf. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907). pp. 367-8; 503-4. 25. Moellering. p. 181. 26. Ibid. 27. Cf. Judisch, pp. 75-79, especially notes 2 and 12. 28. Judisch. p. 79. 29. This response obtains for both mentions of the Aposrolic Consritutions (Moellering, p. 18 1, paragraphs 5 and 6). With respect to the Didache, cf. Judisch, pp. 75-76, note 2; p. 79, note 12. 30. Judisch, p. 80. 31. Cf. Judisch, p. 19. 32. Moellering, p. 181. In the same vein, Dr. Moellering would have liked more documentation in note 15 to the appendix to my book (concerning an erroneous assertion that Luther was a charismatic). To my mind. however, there is not much need to probide more information on this misconception since it is so obviously erroneous and anyone can pursue the matter further via the article cited in my footnote (especially since the article occurs in Chrisrianir~ Toda!, a commonly accessible periodical). 33. Judisch, p. 81 (Smalcald Articles 111, 8:iO). In note 16 on this pap 1 also refer the reader for zn ampler discussion of this matter to David P. Scaer. "An Essay for Lutheran Pastors on the Charismatic Movement," The Sprin@elder, XXXVI (I974j, pp. 21 1-214. 34. Indeed, Dr. Preus has written in the foreword to An Evaiuation (p. LO) that my "conclusions correspond closely to those of Luther and other Reformation fathers." 35. Moellering, p. 182. 36. Charles E. Funk. ed., Funk and Wagnalls ~Vew Pructical Slandard Dictionary of the English Language: Britannica U'orld Language Edition (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1956). 1, p. 927. D. McC.l..J.