QTnurn:r~iu
UJl1rnlngirnl !lnutlJly
Continuing
L EHRE UNO VVEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER E v .-LuTH. HOMIl ETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL M ONTHLY
Vol. XIV November, 1943 No. n
CONTENTS
The Rewlion of Christendom. Th . Engeldcr
Page
___ 745
Outlines on Old Testament Texts (Synodical Conference) ____________ 777
Outlines on the Old Standard Gospel Lessons ________ ______________________ 784
Miscellanea ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 187
Theological Obl>erver ___________________________________________________________________________________ 795
Book Review ______________________________ ________ _ ____ ______ ______________________________ __ ____________ 810
Ein Prediger nlusa ntcht allein wel-
den, also dass er die Schate unter-
weise. wie sle rechte Christen sollen
srAn, sondern nuch daneben den WoeI-
fen wehren, dass sle die Schafe nicht
angrelfen und mit falscher Lehre ver-
fuehren und Irrtum einfuehren.
Lutller
Es 1st keln Ding. da!l die Leute
m ehr bel der Kirche behaelt denn
die gute Predigt. - Apolugie, Arl. 24
If the trumpet gIve an uncertain
sound. who shall prepare himself to
the battle? -1 COT. 14 :8
Published for the
E\ Luth. Syno I of Misso u-i, OluJ, and Other States
'ONCOJl.DIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Lot is 18, Mo.
PR:cnmJ IN '0'. s. £ .
Theological Observer 795
~ical Obsl
American Lutheranism and lIts Rdalions to World Protestantism.
In the Lutheran Outlook for July Rev. H. C. Caspersen, editor of Folke-
bladet, representative of the Lutheran Free Church, publishes an article
having the heading "American Lutheranism and World Council of
Churches," which deserves careful study. The author first attempts
to view American Lutheranism as a whole. As he looks at it in a de-
tached way, he finds it quite complex, having many different shades and
varieties of subdivisions. He says, "One [branch] may emphasize piety
and 'purity of life,' another confessionalism and 'purity of doctrine.' One
lays stress on the 'church and the ministry' or a somewhat high-church
order, another on the local congregation or the universal priesthood of
believers, favoring a low-church view. Again, there may be differing
views regarding the nature of Scripture, its origin, its inspiration, whether
verbal and plenary (practically identical concepts) or historical and
progressive, and so on, almost ad infinitum." A number of other diver-
gencies are listed. Editor Caspersen is right: these differences exist.
He is wrong in not censuring those who reject the plenary inspiration
of the Scriptures or who are not concerned about "purity of doctrine"
as well as "purity of life!' If we are no longer interested in the Scrip-
turalness of our teachings or the inviolable majesty of the "It is written,"
the days of Lutheranism are numbered.
Editor Caspersen holds that there is enough doctrinal unity among
the Lutherans of America to have fellowship with one another. Yes, if
the name Lutheran is enough to form the basis of fellowship or a merely
formal endorsement of the Augsburg Confession suffices for union, his
position is well taken. But wherever Lutherans find the genius of their
Church in simple, unwavering loyalty to everything the Word of God
teaches, especially the Gospel of the atonement, his appraisal will be
unsatisfactory. Our writer objects to the procedure in which "com-
parative trifles" are made "mountain-high barriers." But he must not
forget that no Christian can afford to take departure from any part of
the divine Word lightly, even if it pertains to what appears a trifle; and
while no one should treat a brother who errs in weakness without de-
stroying the foundation as if he were a heretic, the authority of the Word
must be safeguarded.
To the surprise of the reader, Editor Caspersen holds it to be a his-
torical fact that "Lutheranism has never regarded itself as one Church,"
Accordingly he finds it "not remarkable that there is not a Lutheran
Church in America. The situation conforms with the sui generis of
Lutheranism itself. For Lutheranism is not a Church; it is a move-
ment." That strikes one as very strange. Luther, of course, did not
intend to found a new Church; he wished to reform, to purify. But did
not his followers feel that they belonged together, that they formed
one Church? The la~k of outward organization and the liberty with
which in the various countries Lutherans ordered their affairs, some
having bishops, others not, some cultivating a highly developed, I'jch
796 Theological Observer
liturgy, others preferring a simple mode of worship, has apparen1(ly led
Editor Caspersen to the view that there never existed a Lutheran Church.
When thinking of the World Council of Churches, Editor Caspersen
holds that the various bodies of Lutherans here in America may well
join it. His description of the attitude they take at present must here
be inserted. "It is very encouraging to know that the United Lutheran
Church and the Augustana Synod already have taken the first steps of
collaboration. They have by representation at council meetings mani-
fested their sympathy with the new movement. The American Lu-
theran Conference, as such, has not yet dealt with the question. It is
not possible to predict what stand it would take at this time. Likely the
American Lutheran Church would hesitate, a majority of the Norwegian
Lutheran Church could be expected to look with sympathy in the direc-
tion of the World Council, but a strong minori1(y would almost cer-
tainly oppose. The smaller bodies, the Lutheran Free Church and the
United Danish Lutheran Church, would be sympathetic toward the
world federation. The Missouri Synod (the Synodical Conference)
would not join or consider joining."
Much like E. Stanley Jones, the editor of Folkebladet wants each
church body that joins the World Council to retain its own peculiar
doctrines and polity. ''What is needed is not regimentation, but co-opera-
tion." To combat Romanism successfully, Protestantism, he holds, has
to form and present a united front. He concludes with the assertion
that the spirit of American Lutheranism is opposed both to regimenta-
tion and to isolationism.
Apparently the World Council of Churches with its mingling of
Liberals and Conservatives, of Modernists and Fundamentalists, of people
who unhesitatingly and audaciously tread under foot what we Lutherans
hold sacred and others who are" more moderate, holds no terrors for this
theologian. Nor does he recognize its unscripturalness. Our only re-
mark at this time is that if there is to be a procession of Lutherans
headed toward the World Council of Churches, we, of course, if our
warnings are not heeded, cannot prevent it, but we pray God that He
may let Editor Caspersen's declaration concerning our particular stand
remain true and keep us from joining in the rush. A.
Why Disunion? - Writing in the Luth€ran Outlook on factors that
hinder Lutheran uni1(y, Professor John C. Mattes of Wartburg Seminary,
Dubuque, Iowa, enumerates four foes as perhaps responsible, listed long
ago by Roger Bacon, as leading to human errors: Undue regard for
authority, habit, prejudice, false conceit of knowledge. Potent factors
they may get to be, everyone has to admit. The paragraph on the curse
of habit we here reprint. "Then there is the curse of habit. It would
seem as though there are groups that, like the proverbial elephant, can
never forget, with the result that the shibboleths of a past generation
are repeated over and over again, even when they have completely lost
their originial significance. What began as a defense of great principles
degenerates into mere logomachies, because pet phrases have become
sacrosanct, and any new definition, even if it be a better one, is regarded
as a sort of sacrilege. If it were not for a fear of confusing the issue,
Theological Observer 797
we might easily compile a dictionary of such archaic slogans. We will
only mention one, because it is such a stumbling block at the present
time. It is the monotonously repeated designation 'verbal inspiration.'
It has become a misnomer and a false shibboleth. Not that we disagree
for one moment with the intention of those who use it or dissent to
the slightest degree from what they are trying to say. Our complaint
is that they do not say what they mean and that the average individual
is bound to mistake their meaning. No matter what protestations are
made to the contrary, the natural inference is that it is a statement of
the wretched, non-Scriptural dictation-theory of the 7th [17th] century.
We believe fully in the plenary inspiration of Scripture and its religious
inerrancy, but that does not mean that we must regard the writers of
Scripture as mechanical stenographers, or even accept the sacrilegious
idea that the Holy Ghost, by accommodating Himself to the style of
the writers, had to learn diverse Hebrew and Greek idioms from various
human beings. Yet this is ac.tuallY what the term naturally suggests.
Why, then, insist on misleading definitions when most persons are sure
to misunderstand them?"
The author's experience with the term "verbal inspiration" may
have been worse than ours has been. Giving it an unscriptural content
must, of course, be avoided. Usually, if our observation is correct, when
the term is attacked, the critics are opposed to the plenary inspiration
and the inerrancy of the Bible. We are surprised that Dr. Mattes speaks
of the "religious" inerrancy of the holy writings. Does he mean to limit
inerrancy to the "religious" elements in the Bible? Considering how
many lances he shattered for sound Lutheranism when he was still
a member of the U. L. C. A. and the general tenor of the words quoted
above, we are loath to impute such a view to him.
At the conclusion of his article the professor strongly insists that
acceptance of the Lutheran Confessions should be considered a sufficient
guaranty of orthodoxy and that endorsement of other creedal statements
should not be required. He believes we need no further confessional
declarations. That sounds good. But where various interpretations of
the Confessions arise or parts of the Confessions are rejected, discussion
has to take place, and the drawing up of a joint document becomes
inevitable. A.
Verbal Inspiration Witnessed by Confessional Calvinists. Recently
there were published the addresses and agenda of the Second American
Calvinistic Conference, held at Calvin College and Seminary, Grand
Rapids, Mich., June 3-5, 1943. The book (to be had at Baker's Book
Store, Grand Rapids, Mich., price, $1.00) bears the title The Word of
God and the Reformed Faith. It is divided into two parts, the first con-
taining the seven addresses delivered at the Conference and the second,
the banquet speeches and conference memoranda. Of the two parts, the
first is the more important. The addresses, both scholarly and popular,
are all worth studying, because they give the reader a clear insight into
present-day orthodox Calvinistic thought. But what is more, the ad-
dresses are centered in the "Word of God," a most timely subject, since
Barthianism and other erring trends of today have so badly misinter-
798 Theological Observer
preted that tenn. The speakers have treated such subjects as: "The
Glory of the Word of God" (Ockenga); "What Is the Word of God"
(Berkhof); "Present-Day Interpretations of the Word of God" (Allis);
"The Word of God and Philosophy" (Stab), etc. While in our estima-
tion the concept of Inspiration is not sufficiently clarified and also per-
haps not adequately presented, nevertheless, the Bible in unmistakable
terms is asserted to be the inspired Word of God. Some of the state-
ments may interest the reader. We read: "It [Scripture] was written
by men who were inspired, and the writings themselves were God-
inbreathed" (p. 38). - "Calvin thought the writers as notaries who set
down in authentic registers for public report what was dictated to them.
He did not necessarily believe that the mode of reception was dictation,
but that the result was as if these words were dictated" (p. 37). - "This
is not the advoc