(!tnurnr~tu
m~tnln!ltrul ilnut41y
Continuing
LEHaE UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETlK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLy-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
VoL IV January, 1933 No.1
CONTENTS
XRETZKAllN, P. E.: Foreword .......................... .
FtlERBRDlGER, L.: Praesidialrede ... . ............ . .... .
SIHLER, E. G.: Studies in E usebius ....... . .............. .
XRETZMANN, P. E.: Luther und das Sub Utraque ...... . .
XRETZMAliN, P. E.: Die Hauptschriften Luthers in chro-
nolog~er Reihenfolge ................ . ...... . ....... .
LAETSCH, THEO.: Divorce and Kalicious Desertion ..... .
Dispositionen ueber die altkirchliche Epistelreibe ..... .. .
l'Itiscellanea ........................ , ...... . .......... . ..... .
Theological Observer. - Xirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches .. ... .
Book Review. - Llteratur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...... ...... . . .
Page
1
11
15
26
33
35
38
46
50
73
Ein P redlger mWII nicht allein 1DeWen,
also das1 er die Schafe unterweise, wie
sis rechte CbriBten IOllen llein, IOIldero
BUch daneben den WoeHen wehr ... , daas
sie die Schafe nicht angreifen und mit
falscher Lehre verfuehren und Irrtum ein-
fuehren. - Luther.
Es ist kein Ding, dll8 die Leute meh.
bel der Klrche behaelt denn dt. rute
Predlgt. - .4pow"u., Arl. ,...
If the t rumpet give an uncertain aound,
who shall prepare hlmseH to the hattle1
J 00r. 4. 8.
Published for the
Ev. Luth. Synod of lIIissonri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis,
Concordia
Theological Monthly
VOL-IV JANUARY, 1933 No.1
Foreword.
Can the Lutheran Bodies of America Get Together?
The K irchliche Z eitschrift of August, 1932, in reviewing the
resolutions of the Missouri Synod in its meeting at Milwaukee in
June, remarks: "Die noch vor F. Piepers Tod veroeffentlichten
These·;f., 'UeLeT lrri8:s()'ur~i8 Lehl"siellung 'lDurden ojfizielZ angenommeny
und damit ist die Arbeit des IntersynodaZen KOlnite.es begmben."
(Page 500.)
A layman writes to the Lutheran of October 6, 1932: "Have
enjoyed the series of four articles on 'Lutheran Union' as presented
from four different viewpoints. However, your editorial remarkR con-
cerning the above were quite disappointing to me in so far as you do
not seem to like 'free conferences.' How will we Lutherans ever get
together if we refuse to confer with one anothed Surely a free
conference is a good beginning. Differences will crop out of course,
but must be honestly faced by all. We Lutherans cannot unite by
ignoring real differences. A mere church-government union will not
suffice. It might be best if all parties that differ would confer and
draw up a statement of faith based on the Bible in harmony with the
accepted Confessions, and the same could eventually be used as
a working basis for future 'Lutheran unity' and then 'Lutheran
union.' "
All of which causes us to ask the question at the head of this
article: "Can the Lutheran Bodies of America Get Together~"
Let it be stated at once that the prospects seem to be rather
favorable, if one may be guided by recent public and semipublic ut-
terances in resolutions of organizations and in statements made by
representative men upon occasions which were regarded as confes-
sional demonstrations.
There must, of course, be a common and solid confessional basis.
The Word of God, inerrant and infallible in its entirety and in all
its parts, must be regarded as the norma norrnans, the one and only
1
2 Foreword.
somce of doctrine and norm of life. The writings of the Lutheran
Ohurch as contained in the Book of Ooncord and as now accepted or
recognized by all the Lutheran bodies of America must be regarded
as the nor-ma nor-mata in all their doctrinal statements and exposi-
tions. 'Without this common basis there can be no thought of com-
mon doctrinal thinking and therefore not of doctrinal unity. And let
it be understood a t once that all the doctrines of the Bible must be
considered as essential in this platform, since the difference between
fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines is one merely of degree.
It has been correctly stated by Stump (The Chr-istian Faith, 18):
"A distinction has sometimes been drawn between fundamental and
non-fundamental articles of faith. But when the effort is made to
point out which doctrines are fundamental and which are not, a dif-
ficulty arises. The fact is that, while some doctrines are more neces-
sary to salvation than others, no doctrines taught in God's ,'lord dare
to be regarded as of no real consequence; and furthermore many doc-
trines which seem at first glance to be non-fundamental are found,
when c.arried to their logieal eonelusions, to bear largely on doetrines
which :ll'C TIllmi~t:lkQbly fTIllCbmcllt:ll." It h:ls wcll bCll G:lid th:1.t
,,11 the doctrines of the Bible together form a ehain and that, if one
link of the chain is broken, the entire ehain is severed. - But while
this eonfessional basis must be maintained and insisted upon, we are
just as emphatic in subscribing the words of the Augustana: "And to
the true unity of the Ohurch it is enough to agree concerning the
doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments.
N or is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies
instittdecZ by men, should be everywhere alike." (Art. VII, "Of the
Chmch." Op. Art. XV, "Of Ecclesiastical Usages.")
The question now arises, if we may be permitted to borrow a term
from the world of sports: How do the var-ious liutheran bocZies of
ilmenca line t~p, chiefly with regard to those Scriptural doctrines
whieh have been in controversy at one time or other? Let us follow
the divisions of doctrinal theology as commonly accepted in order to
see just where the difficulties lie and whether any progress has been
made in removing misunderstandings and false conceptions.
Bibliology. - Here the various confessions and public declara-
tions in themselves seem to be adequate. For example, the General
Synod, numerically the largest of the bodies now cOllstituting the
United Lutheran Ohurch of Amerien, stated in its Richmond Resolu-
tions: "Resolved, That we herewith declare our adherence to the
statement 'The Bible is the Word of God' and reject the error implied
in the statement 'The Bible contains the Word of God.' " (Neve,
A Brief History of the Lutheran Chur'ch in Amer-ica, 453.) This was
in 1909. Four years later, at Atchison, Kans., it was reported that
the constitution of the body had been changed and accepted by the
Foreword.
constituent synods, in agTeement with the Richmond Resolutions, so
that Article II, on the Doctrinal Basis, read: "With the Evangelical
Lutheran Ohurch of the Fathers, the General Synod receives and
holds the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the
Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practise; and
it receives and holds the Unaltered Augsburg Oonfession as a correct
exhibition of the faith and doctrine of our Ohurch as founded upon
that Word." (Neve, Gp. cit., 184.) The former Ohio Synod very
emphatically stated its position with regard to the doctrine of in-
spiration in the resolutions of 1926: "The Synod accepts all the
canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired and
inerrant Word of God and the only source, norm, and guide of faith
and life," even opposing the change as suggested by the delegate of
the former Iowa Synod, which read: "The Synod accepts all the
canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired
Word of God and the inerrant and only source, norm, and guide of
faith and life." (Repod, 246 fl.) This was in agreement with the
Minneapolis Theses of 1925, as drawn up by representatives of the
Iowa; Ohio; :1nrl fh,.ftalo synods and the NOl'''.");legian Luthel'an Church
of America, which stated: "The synods signatory to these Articles
of Agreement accept without exception all the canonical books of
the Old and the New Testament, as a whole and in all their parts, as
the divinely inspired, revealed, and inerrant Word of God and submit
to this as the only infallible authority in all matters of faith and
life." (1'heol. ~M.onthly, VII, 112.) The confession of inerrancy was
placed in the appendix of the Oonstitution of the American Lutheran
Ohurch, while the constitution proper has the reading: "The Synod
accepts all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as
the inspired Word of God and the inerrant and only source, norm,
and guide of faith and life." But it may be assumed, so far as the
constituent bodies forming the American Lutheran Ohurch are con-
cerned, that they stand unequivocally fOl' the inerrancy of Scripture.
The Kirchenblatt of September 10, 1932, states: UDamit kommen wiT'
nun zu dem eigentlichen Geheimnis del' Bibel, naemlich zu dem Ge-
heimnis ih?'es Ursprungs, wir meinen zu ih?'M' Inspimtion. . .. Dabei
1st es auch wah?', dass Gott dUTCh diese Maenner geredet hat und dass
sie,solange sie inspiried waren, n'u1' Gottes Wod redeten, frei von
allem lrrtum und aZZer Truebung." And the Pastor's Monthly of
September, 1932, says, in an article on "The Divine Inspiration of
the Holy Scriptures": "If there is no verbal inspiration, then we
can never be sure that we have God's revelation. . .. Neither the
matter nor the form of God's revelation is of human origin. God
made use of human beings and of human language to give us a divine
revelation, a revelation which as to form as well as substance is above
human frailty. In a most eminent sense God is the Author of the
4 Foreword.
Holy Scriptures." With such statements coming from every part of
the Lutheran Ohurch, from practically every body, an agreement as
to the platform should not be impossible.
However, it must be understood that no doubts, concessions, or
ambiguous statements may be permitted, as though, for example, the
inerrancy of Holy Scripture were a mere theological deduction, not
a clear doctrine of the Bible itself, or that the absolute inspiration
and the verbal inerrancy of the Bible in all its parts were a doctrine
peculiar to the later dogmaticians, and that one cannot hold every
single statement of the Bible to be literally true, or that Scripture
merely contains the revelation of God to men, or that "the words of
the Bible are inspired words because they are the words of inspired
men," or that "the inspiration was confined to matters of religion
and that on scientific matters the holy writers neither knew nor
professed to know more than other men of their day." Such state-
ments are either outright erroneous or misleading or inadequate, for
which reason a God-pleasing unity would demand that they be elimi-
nated from the spoken and the written expressions within the Lu-
theran Ohurch))
Theology. - In this division of Ohristian doctrine the various
Lutheran bodies show a most commendable unity, in keeping with
the Ecumenical Oreeds, both the Trinity and the Triunity being
respected as well as the full deity of every Person of the Godhead.
However, it certainly disturbs the analogy of faith as well as the
balance of Scriptures if one "does not find the doctrine of the Trinity
revealed in the Old Testament," since the second part of the Book
of Isaiah repeatedly distinguishes three Persons of the Godhead and
ascribes personality and activity to everyone of them. In this con-
nection it should also be noted that the practise of dealing with dis-
senters in the fundamental doctrines of this section of Bible truth
should be more consistent, since even according to the Symbolum
Qtticunque a person not in agreement with the doctrine of the Trinity
cannot be saved.
Anthropology and Cosmology. - Here the unanimous confession
of the Lutheran Ohurch demands the belief in a creation ex nihilo,
which certainly excludes both an atheistic and a theistic evolution.
Writers in practically every part of the L.utheran Ohurch of America
have denounced the vagaries of materialism and of the theory of
evolution. (Op. books by Graebner, Gruber, Keyser, Schoeler, etc.)
But it would seem that an unequivocal position concerning this doc-
trine would also eliminate statements declaring that "the writer of
Genesis lacked such a lmowledge of the vastness of the universe and
1) Our position is stated in CONCORDIA THEOL. MONTHLY, I, 21 ff.
107 ff.; II, 190. 655 if. 754 ff.; III, 838 if.; Lehre und Wehre, 1902, 129 ff.
Foreword. 5
of the nature of chemical and geological processes as the modern man
possesses." (We have in mind, of course, the statements contained
in the inspired account.) If the omniscient and eternal God inspired
the Book of Genesis, He was possessed of a vastly greater amount of
information than that exhibited by all the proponents of the theory
of evolution taken together.2)
Christo logy. - With regard to the doctrine of the person of
Ohrist there seems to exist complete unanimity, both in confession
(virgin birth, deity) and in practise. Apparently none of the Lu-
theran bodies of America are now tolerating in their midst any open
denial of these truths.
Soteriology. - With reference to the doctrine of the office of
Ohrist the confessional basis as well as the actual confession of every
Lutheran church-body in America seems to be in full harmony with
Scriptures and the Lutheran Oonfessions. The strange aberration of
the teaching of a kenosis in the humiliation of Ohrist has found no
acceptance in the Lutheran Ohurch in America, although it may have
influenced some individuals for a time. However, their teaching was
not tolerated, at least not officially. The same is true with regard to
the active obedience of the Savior, which is denied in some parts of
the Ohurch. With the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Oonfes-
sions both the active and the passive obedience of Ohrist in His
work of atonement are generally taught among Lutherans. Ooncern-
ing Ohrist's descent into hell there seems to be some haziness, since
the "''1eVaaf'" of 1 Pct. 3, 19 is taken to be an announcement that the
"dealings of God with Old Testament believers and unbelievers would
be completely vindicated." Others seem to hold the view expressed by
some of the older Lutheran teachers, namely, that the descent of
Ohrist into hell was according to His soul only. An adjustment con-
cerning these doctrines should not offer unusual difficulties if the
various proof-texts are carefully examined.3)
Pnenmatology. - The doctrines treated under this category may
be among the most difficult to adjust, for they include in particular
conversion and election. With regard to both points both Holy Writ
and the Lutheran Oonfessions are certainly clear and comprehensive
enoug·h. With regard to conversion this attitude is generally reflected
in recent confessional statements of the Lutheran bodies in this
country. As stated in the Report of the Ohio Synod of 1920, the
National Lutheran Oouncil in regard to conversion adopted the state-
ment: "Oonversion, as the word is commonly used in our Lutheran
2) Our position is stated in the writings referred to above; also Lehre
1tnd WeMe, October, 1919; Theol. Monthly, February, 1924.
3) Our position is stated in CONCORDIA THEOL. MONTHLY, I, 810.888;
II, 244; III, 826 if.
6 Foreword.
Oonfessions, comprises contrition and faith, produced by the Law and
the Gospel. If a man is not converted, the responsibility and guilt
fall on him, because he, in spite of God's all-sufficient grace through
the call, would not, according to the words of Ohrist in Matt. 23, 37."
(P. 132 ff.) Recent utterances very decidedly favor the understand-
ing that the synerg'ism of both Melanchthon and of Latermann have
been rejected. "Since conversion begins with a sinner who is both
unwilling and unable to believe and ends with the same sinner both
willing and able to believe and actually doing so, it is clear that the
transformation is one which must be ascribed entirely to thc working'
of the Holy Spirit and not to any natural powers of man. . .. We
reject ... the synergistic position, which holds that the Holy Ghost
must begin the work of conversion, but that then man is able by his
own powers to complete it. The fact is that, from beginning to end,
conversion is due to the agency and activity of the Holy Spirit, and
not at all to any natural powers of man. There is indeed a certain
activi ty of man in the process, since it is an ethical one; but that
activity is produced by the Holy Spirit and is exercised by means
of pOWel'R whi .. h tllP Holy Rri,.it h