Qtnurnr~itt
m4rnlnguttl ~nut41y
Con tinning
LEHRE UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER EV.-LUTH. HOMlLETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. V June, 1934 No.6
CONTENTS
p~ e
Die rechte Mitte in der Liturgie und Ordnung des Gottes-
dienstes. L. Fuerbringer. . • . . . • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • . . .• 417
The Story of the German Bible. P. E. Krel mann . • ••••.•• , 425
Zur Lehre von der Reue. Th. En~ ,lder .• . ••.•.••••••.••• 445
Der Pastor in seinem Verhaeltnis zu seintn Amtsnachbarn.
\V'1. H e' ne . • . • • . • • •• 4~6
Sermons and Outlines ... . 466
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich -Zeitgeschichtliches . . .. 478
Book Review. - Literatul' .................... . ...... , 489
Eln Prediger m .. nlcbt .nelo IDtidma,
aJeo d er dj~ Scbafe unterweise, wle
lie recllte ObrlRm 1O!!e:: .. 10, IOndem
.nch danebi 'tl d... WoeltfD tofhrm, daaa
lie die Scba1e nlcht angrellen 1DId mit
falacber Lehre ftrluebren und latun) eln·
fuebm!. - lA,tw.
£3 lot keln Din!:. daa die Leute lIIehr
bel d.r KU'cbe bebaelt denn dl~ CUI4
Pr' dll'(l;. - .Apowou • .Art. !.t.
It tb~ trumpet rive UI IIDC<'mln 1OUIId,
who ili~U p~ ... hllM'!lf to the battle t
i Ofn'. U , 8.
Published for the
Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States
OONOORDU PUBLISHING BOUSE, St. Louis, Mo.
~
-ARCHIV:
478 Theological Observer. - ~itdjlidj~Seitgeidjidjmcf)e~.
Theological Observer. - ~hdjIidj"geitgefdjidjtlidje~.
1. .2lmrriktt.
"Lutheranerens Sofisteri." - Under this heading Evangelisk Lu-
thersk Kirketidende, the official organ of the Norwegian Synod of the Ev.
Luth. Church takes Lutheraneren, the official Norwegian organ of the United
Norwegian Church, seriously to task on account of its "philosophical specu-
lations" ("filosofiske spekltlationer") in its synergistic presentation of the
doctrine of conversion. The whole matter began with an innocent question
propounded by 011e of Lu,therameren's readers, namely, whether it is correct
to say, "One converts himself," or "Moody has converted so and so many
sinners." liutheraneren replied that the statements are incorrect, when
applied to conversion in its narrow sense. It said: "If with the word
conversion we think exclusively of that act in the soul which consists in
the crossing over from spiritual death to spiritual life, then it is God
alone who acts, and that without any cooperation from the side of man.
Man can do nothing in this link. In this sense he cannot convert himself.
Neither can a Moody or any other mJan convert any other person. To
create a new life in man is a creative work of omnipotence, which God alone
can perform." (Cf. CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, p.525, July, 1933.)
So far, so good. However, Ltltheraneren continues: "But this act of God
can be performed only after Ce1'tain conditions are present. These condi-
tions consist in this, that the sinner reads or hears the Word of God, that
he considers the content of the Word, tha,t he gives his consen,t, that he
oonsiders it in its application to himself, tha,t he aoknowledges that he is
on the wrong road, that he sees before him a dark eternity, etc. Snch
things the 1tn1'egenenkte man can do. Unless the sinner performs these
spiritual acts, the Spirit of God gets no opportunity to create the new
spiritual life in him. But when the sinner does these things, then the
Spirit of God gets the opportunity and uses it to create the life. Thus the
sinne1' mUllt himself provide a neceSSrLry pre1'equisite for God's aot in the
soul. If one in the concept conversion includes these links in the chain,
which accordingly man himself oan and must provide, then there will also
be some truth in this that man converts himself. . .." Such was
Ltttherane1'en's first utterance on conversion, its first synergistic misrepre-
sentation of what our dogmaticians have called "intransitive conversion."
Lutheraneren's article was answered by a lengthy discussion of the
matter which appeared in the CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY (July,
1933) uncler the heading "Kein Modus Agendi VOl' der Bekehrttng." In
reply to this Ll1themneren wrote inter alia: "There is something helpless
in this internal self-contradiction and confusion in this part of the Mis,
sourian theology [se.: "Unconverted man can read, hear, and understand
God's Word externally or g1'a-mmatically, but not spiritually, so as to be-
lieve and accept the Gospel"]. The confusion arises from the fact that
one does not take any notice of the psychological factor which without fail
must be included if one would have his ideas well ordered. For our purpose
in this connection we think of two regions of the soul. Each one of these
acts under its own laws. The one region is consciottsness, There ideas,
Theological Observer. - .Ritd)nd)~2eitgefd)id)t!id)e~. 479
thoughts, feelings, and volitions are active. Over these activities man
(unoonverted nuML included) has power to exercise self-determination.
Deeper down in the soul is another region. We have no direct conscious
knowledge of this. The will has no direct power over it. When Scripture
uses the word heart, it points in certain instances to this region [siol].
Modern psychologists call it the 'subconscious,' because they regard it as
lying under the conscious sphere. . .. It is in the consoiousness that the
mental activities in connection with the hearing, reading, and meditating
on God's Word take place. lln this sp.here natural man has the ability
to exercise self-dete1wuination. . .. Man must provide his mental con-
tribution for the shaping of the instrument [the "hearing" of God's Word] .
. . . When, then, the Holy Ghost by these means comes to the soul and the
'instrument [man's "hearing," consenting to God's \\lord, etc.] in the oon-
soiousness is 'ready for His use, then follows His creative regenerating work
in the heart, in the deep, in the subconsciousness. There He works alone.
There man has no modus agendi, .. , We read in the Formula of Concord:
" .. For concerning the presence, operation, and gifts of the Holy Ghost
we should not and cannot always judge ex sensu [from feeling], as to how
and when they are experienced in thc heart; but because they are often
covered and occur in great weakness, we should be certain,' etc. (Trigl.,
903.) 'When the Formula here says that the Holy Ghost's work of creating
new life 'often oceUTS coyered and in gTeat weakness,' then that shows that
its author localized the act not in the open consciousness, but deeper down
in the S0111 [7] or, as we would say in the language of modern psychology,
in the subconscious. The ohange whioh has ooourred in the deep' reu,ms
again on the oonsciousness.
"When, then, the Holy Ghost must have this 'hearing' as His instru-
ment; when without this 'hearing' He neither can be present nor regenerate
man; when this 'hearing' consists in conscious ideas, thoughts, feelings,
and volitions in man,' when these cannot come into existence without man's
self-determining, vOlltntary oont?'ibutions thereto,' when, therefore, the pos-
sibility of the OOOU1TenCe of conversion depends on ma,n's choice either to
supply these cont1'ibut'ions to the to'r'm,ing of this' instntment of the Spirit
0" not to supply them, then it follows from necessity 1) that the attitude
nat1wal man volltntarily assttmes at this point has u, deoiding significance
fOl' his oonversion,' and~) that the categoricu,l assertion that man, as tar
as luis conversion is conoerned, oan do, nothing u,t an in spirituu,l thingsJ
before his convel-sion is a contttsing, misleading, and cZangero,us teaching'.
If one distinguishes, as indicated, between that which takes place in man's
salvation with the cooperati{)n in the conscious, self-deteTmining region of
the soul and that which takes place by the sole activity of the Spirit in
the deep of the soul, then one will also get a clear understanding of the
Formula of Concord [sid]. If one mixes that which takes place in the
consciousness with that which takes place in the deep and treats the two
objects as though they were one and the same, then confusion is un-
avoidable. In the realm of thought distinction must be made between the
things that are different." (Cf. Lutheraneren, January 17, 1934.)
Both Kirketidende and the Lutheran Sentinel of the Norwegian Synod
replied to this synergistic presentation of the doctrine of conversion. In the
Lutheran Sentinel we read: "We notice here that he [the author] ascribes
480 Theological Observer. - Sl'itd)fidj~8eitgefdjidjmdje§J.
to the unconvel·ted sinner powel' and ability to assent to the Word of God,
Law and Gospel; to apply the truth to himself, to acknowledge his sin
and guilt, and to understand that he is subject to eternal punishment.
But not only that. We notice also that he teaches that natural man before
his conversion to God not only can by his natural powers and abilities
himself perform this part of the work of his own conversion, but that he
must do all this as a necessary condition, or prerequisite, to the regenerative
work of the Holy Ghost. If the unoonverted sinner does not thus prepare
and open his own heal't, the Holy Ghost cannot convert lIIim. That this
doctrine is gross synergism and contrary to and entirely opposed to the
doctrine of the 'Vord of God concerning the corrupt condition and total
lack of abilities and powers of natural man in spiritual things can easily
btl understood from nmuerous clear passages of Scripture. . .. It is an
undeniahle fact that the union of 1917 did not cure the participating
churches from the disease of synergism. In Lutheranel'en, January 17 issue
of this year, appears a second article in defense of the first. We shall take
notice of that later." (Cf. Lutheralt Sentinel, February 14, 1934.)
Kil'ketidende, February 7, 1934, comments on the matter as follows:
"In spite of God's clear Word, L~(,theral16,'en teaches that unconverted man
can and must work together towards his conversion and that the Holy
Spirit is not aMe to do anything betol'c' the sinnel' himself has opened his
heart and determined himself for salvation and given the Wm'd his assent.
But Lnthel'aneren has no use for God's Word in its description of natural
man's condition before conversion, that is, before his conversion and salva-
tion. In its whole discussion it has no use for a single word of God as
proof for its doctrine. It manages the whole thing with philosophical
&peoulations. With these philosophical speculations it has discovered
a deeper region in the soul, which it calls the 'subconscious,' concerning
which we of course cannot know anything. But there it is that the Spirit's
activity takes place, while in that region of the soul which is called the
conscious, consisting of reason, will. and conscience, there man himself
works, That is the portal through which the Spirit mrust enter and that
man himself must open. Unless man does this, he cannot become converted.
Accordingly, it is man's own work which makes the decision. That is too
bad! Lutheraneren teaches that a man is saved not by grace alone, but
by grace and works, and that is synergism."
In a letter which Dr. L. A. Vigness addressed to one of his protesting
readers he further explains man's self,determination as follows: "When
the Woa'd of God is present in the mind as indicated, it cannot be said
that the mind aets exclusively by its own powers. Let me say that the
m.ind cannot produce a concept even of a small material object, as, for
instance, an apple, by its own powers. Every mental act is a joint product
of two contributing factors, namely, a stimulus and a l'e&ponse. The apple,
for instance, acts as the stimulus; the optic and other nerves respond by
carrying the currents to the brain; the intellectual functions respond b~
transforming that current into percepts and combining' these into a concept.
In the call to the unregenerate sinner to repentance the Holy Spirit and
the Word of God acts as the stimulus, of course different from, and incom-
parably superior to, a material object. But to this stimlUlating presence,
which is there in and through the WOl'd, the mind responds. And so far
Theological Observer. - .ltitd;1icf)<,8eitgejcf)id)t1icf)es. 481
as the conscience realm (the conscious) is concerned, this response comes
from the funot.ions involved by the innate vital powers in those functions.
It is simply nonsense to say that the sensory nerves and the percept-forming
and concept-forming functions of the mind can act in the formation of all
other concepts, but are dead and useless when it oomes to recei'Vmg, and
acting on, the concept-f01'ming stimulus from the Word of God. The prac-
tise of yourself and others who hold this view is a good deal better than
your theory. I do not believe your message to the unregenerate can be
summed up in a statement like this: I have a very important message to
you, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. You neither
mean nor say anything like this. You expeot response of some kind. And
this is plainly enough the teaching of the Scriptures and our Lutheran
Confessions."
We say, It is not. While our Confessions declare expressly that un-
converted man can hear and read and somewhat discuss the Word of God
externally or grammatically, he cannot hear, read, or perceive the 'Word
of God spiritually, so as to give his assent to the Gospel, believe and
accept it. The entire second article of the Formula of Concord is an em-
phatic denial of what Luthemneren here teaches. And this denial is based
upon Scripture, which attests: "It is God which worketh in you both to will
and to do of His good pleasure," Phil. 2,13. Yet, when we address the
spiritually dead man with the Word of God, this is not mockery, just as
little as it was mockery when Christ said to Lazarus: "Come forth." For
the Word of God is the living, effectual means by which the Holy Spirit
works contrition and faith in the spiritually dead man, just as Christ
bestowed new life upon Lazarus by His divine word.
Years ago synergism advanced the "psychological-mystery theory" to
demonstrate man's cooperation in his conversion. Lutheraneren now comes
out with a new "subconscious-conscious theory" and with a "stimulus-
response theory" to prove the seli-determination which natural man must
do to make it possible for the Holy Spirit to convert him. All are
"filosofis7ce spekula