Q!nurnr~iu
ml1rnlngiral mnut41y
Continuing
LEHRE UND ~EHRE
MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. VII March, 1936 No.3
CONTENTS
Page
The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology.
Th. Engelder, • • • • • • • • •• 161
Non est vis magica. Walter Albrecht. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 175
Der Schriftgrund fuer die Lehre von der satisfactio vicaria.
P. E. Kretzmann •••••••• 190
Sermon Study on 2 Cor. 7,4-10. Theo. Laetsch •••••••••• 194
Dispositionen ueber die erste von der Synodalkonferenz
angenommene Evangelienreihe .................... 203
Miscellanea ........................................ 215
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich.Zeitgeschichtliches .... 221
Book Review. - Literatur ........................... 233
Ein Prediger muss nlcht alleln weide .. ,
also dass er die Schate unterwelse, wie
ole rechte Christen sollen sein, aondern
auch danehen den Woelfen wehr ... , dasa
sie die Scha1e nlcht angreUen und mit
talscher Lehre verfuehren und Irrtum ein·
ruehren. - Lulher.
Es ist keln Ding, das die Leute mebr
bei der Kirche hehaelt denn die gute
Predigt. - .tpol.ogi8, Are.!j.
If the trumpet give an uncertain sound,
'1'1 ho shall prepare himself to the battle 1
1 Oor. ~,8.
Published for the
Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo.
Concordia
Theological Monthly
Vol. VII MARCH, 1936 No.3
The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical
Theology.
(Oontinued.)
The principles ruling the dialectical theology are not those of the
Reformation. Brunner repudiates the formal principle of Protes-
tantism, the sola ScriptUl1'a. He refuses to accept Scripture as the
sole authority, the only source and basis of doctrine. The bare words
of Scripture cannot establish a doctrine. "In earlier days this dis-
cussion [concerning the Virgin Birth] used to be cut short by
saying briefly, 'It is written'; that is, with the aid of the doctrine of
verbal inspiration. To-day we can no longer do this, even if we
would." (P.323.) Brunner is consistent. Since he rejects the real
inspiration of Scripture, he cannot accept the written word of Scrip-
ture as a real authority. Since it is in itself the word of man and
the word of man is subject to error, it cannot demand instant and
unquestioning acceptance. We heard Brunner say that "the literal
words of the Pauline tradition" are not ''beyond the reach of criti-
cism" (p.544). Then we hear him say that "facts whose historical
details are still uncertain are therefore a most unsuitable foundation
for faith" (p.378). We certainly accept that rule. And therefore
Brunner cannot conscientiously find in the non-inspired, unreliable
word of Scripture a suitable foundation for faith. Brunner believes
in "the authority of the Bible," but not in the sense that the real,
bare, actual words of the Bible possess divine authority. That is
"materializing" the authOl'ity of the Bible. "The doctrine of verbal
inspiration materialized the authority of the Scriptures." (P. 343.)
He means, "In Protestantism everything was staked upon the Bible
and within orthodoxy upon the legal authority of the actual letter of
Scripture. Hence, when this foundation was destroyed, the whole
building began to totter. . .. The orthodox doctrine of verbal inspira-
tion has been finally destroyed." But "the Reformers had a quite
different conception of the authority of the Bible" (p.l05). It is clear
11
162 The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology.
that Brunner denies the authority of the words of Scripture as they
are written. In his The Wonl and the World he declares: "This
materialistic, or to be more exact, this idolatrous acceptance of Bible
authority has done great damage to Ohristian faith. . .. Luther
would never have approved of the opinion of later orthodoxy that
everything in the Scriptures, just because it is in the Scriptures, is
equally inspired by the Holy Spirit." (Pp. 92. 94.) We can under-
stand why, when Brunner quotes the "well-known phrases: sola gratia,
sola fide, soli Deo gloria" (p. 295), he omits the sola Scriptura.
And still we are told that the dialectical theology is rejuvenating
the principles of the Reformation. "Emil Brunner, staunch proponent
of the theology of the Reformation" (L~tfh. OhU1'ch Qna1'ierly, July,
1935, p. 211). "Karl Barth's amazing success as a mentor of German
theology in bringing it back from speculative labyrinths to the Bible
itself" (l. c., p.293). And Brunner himself insists that he is in full
accord with the "reformers" in the matter of the formal principle.
Is he in accord with the Reformed "reformers" '1 Ohas. Hodge
answers: "All Protestants agree in teaching that 'the \Vol'd of God
as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the
only infallible rule of faith and practise'" and quotes a number of
Reformed symbols, for instance, the Th'iTty-nine At·licles. "What-
soever is not read therein (in Holy Scripture) nor may be proved
thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed
as an article of faith." (Sys. Theol., I, p.150.) The founders of the
Reformed faith did not consistently apply this principle. Frequently
they bowed to the authority of reason. But they subscribed to the
principle of the absolute authority of the actual letter of Scripture.
Is Brunner in accord with Luther? "The Word of God shall
establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel."
(Smale. Art., Trigl., p. 467.) Brunner, too, says that the only
authority is the Word of God, but there he is not speaking the
language of Luther and of the Lutheran Oonfessions. In Lutheran
language the Word of God is Scripture. Brunner refuses to identify
Scripture with the Word of God. But when the Lutheran Oonfes-
sions speak of the Word of God, they mean Scripture. "The Word
of God shall establish articles of faith" is equivalent to saying: "In
this way the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and
standard, etc." (Formula of Ooncord, Trigl., p.779.) And: The
Augsburg Oonfession "has been taken from God's Word and is
founded firmly and well therein"; "e Verba D07rt,ini est desumpta
et ex fnndamentis sacrarum litterarum solide exstrucia." (L. c., Trigl.)
p. 850 f.) Verbum Domini and sacrae litterae are one and the same
thing. The Bible is the sole authority. Not only "within orthodoxy,"
but also in the theology of Luther everything was staked upon the
Bible, the authority of the actual letter of Scripture. Brunner should
The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology. 163
read Luther's treatise Dass diese Worte Ohristi: "Das ist mem
Leib," etc., noeh fest stehen. Luther bases his doctrine of the Lord's
Supper, of the Real Presence, on four little words of Scripture.
He does not inquire what the "spirit" might say to the contrary, what
might be the real "Word of God" back of this written word. He
stakes everything on the actual letter of Scripture. Brunner and
those who think that the dialectical theologians are disciples of Luther
should study these expressions of Luther: "Since the Holy Scrip-
ture is among the Christians the empress" (XX, p. 763); "Here are
the plain, clear words; they say: 'This is My body'''; "This en-
thusiasm is fighting against plain, clear Scripture"; "I shall, in con-
tempt of the devil, treat at this time only one solitary passage: 'This
is My body'''; "This one single verse is strong enough to silence
their idle, wicked twaddle" (p. 767 fl.); "Mir ist also, dass mir ein
jeglieher Sprueh die Welt zu enge macht. Nun sie aber ueberhin
flattern und denken, es sei ]{ enschenwort, ist's leicht, dass keine
Schrift sie zwinge" (p. 788); "Please count and examine every letter;
you must not skip over the statements of Scripture so lightly";
"I insist that they produce clear Scripture" (p. 813 fl.); "Let them
get a boy to spell out to them these words: 'This is My body'" (p.846).
Those were the days when the discussion used to be cut short by
saying briefly: "It is written." Brunner is not following in the
footsteps of Luther.
He does indeed insist on the "authority of Scripture," on "the
Scripture principle." "It belongs to the very nature of the Ohristian
religion that all its theological statements should be examined in the
light of the Scriptures and that without the authority of Scripture
behind them they should be pronounced invalid, or at least, not
binding." (P. 171.) "The Scriptural principle of the Ohristian
Ohurch" must not ''be thrown away." (P.326.) "The apostolic
witness to Ohrist is the basis of our faith in Ohrist, and the basis of
the Ohurch." (P. 574.) ~rhat can these statements mean in the light
of the statements quoted in the preceding· paragraph ~ In the first
place, this looks very much like a contradiction. ".All theological
statements should be examined in the light of the Scriptures ....
Without the authority of Scripture behind them they should be
pronounced invalid." That is Brunner speaking on page 171. "The
process of producing arguments and proofs based on Scripture is
untenable on general grounds. . .. It is here especially unfOl·tunate."
That is Brunner speaking' on page 324. Oan we be accuscd of
captiousness if we pronounce these statoments to be somewhat con-
tradictory ~
In the second place, it may be that, when Brunner disqualifies
Scripture as the source of the saving doctrine, but still demands that
all theological statements should be examined in the light of the
164 The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology.
Scriptures, he is speaking under the in:fiuence of that vagary of
modern theology which holds that, while men derive their theology
from some other source than Scripture, they must use Scripture as
a norm and see whether their teachings agree with Scripture. Hof-
mann, who taught that the Ohristian consciousness is the source of
the Ohristian knowledge, still says: "Oertainly, Scripture and the
Ohurch will, under normal conditions, offer exactly the same truths
which we have found within ourselves. But to :find them there is the
second business after the first one." (Schriftbeweis, 2, I, 11.) Hof-
mann is willing to have Scripture pass on what his Ohristian I has
produced. (Op. Pieper, Chr. Dogmatik, I, 67.) The second founder of
this lchtheologie within the Lutheran Ohurch, Frank, operated with
the same vagary. "The Ohristian consciousness draws the dogmatical
truths out of itself; however, only in harmony with the testimony
of the records" (Scripture) "as to Ohristian knowledge." (System
der christlichen Wah1·heit, I, p.91.) Frank is pleased to know that
what the I of the theologian has produced is going to agree with what
the first Ohurch recorded in Scripture. (Op. Lehre und Wehre, 42,
p. 70; 25, p.120.) It may be that Brunner, when speaking of the
authority of the Bible, is in part in:fiuenced by a similar conception.
But then he should not have used these general terms "authority of
the Bible," "Scripture principle." And he should not forget that he
has rendered the Bible useless for this purpose. Since the Bible is
not inspired and contains erroneous statements, that particular state-
ment of the Bible which the theologian is using as norm may be one
of the erroneous ones.
In the third place, we shall find that Brunner constitutes the
"Word of God" as the real authority. And when we understand his
use of the term "Word of God," we shall know how he can both assert
the authority of Scripture (for the Word of God comes to us in
Scripture) and deny the authority of Scripture (the bare word of
Scripture as opposed to the "Word of God"). Still we are not satisfied.
Such a use of language is not justifiable.
What is the fundamental principle of the dialectical theology?
This: the Word of God establishes the doctrine; the Word of God
is the source of all saving knowledge; the Word of God is the source
of spiritual life; the Word of God creates faith; the Word of God
confers aU spiritual blessings. We certainly subscribe to all of that.
The "authority of Scripture" rests on this, that the "Bible is the Word
of God"; that is "the Scriptural principle of the Ohristian faith"
(p. 326 - quoted verbatim in the preceding article). "Faith tends
towards mysticism if ... men maintain that it is possible to hold
direct, immediate communion with the exalted Lord not mediated
through the Word. This is the fanaticism which would turn the be-
liever into a prophet!" (P.585.) "Faith arises out of the Word of
The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology. 165
God." (P.160.) But when Brunner tells us in what sense he is using
the term "Word of God," we cannot subscribe to these statements.
What, then, does this term mean?
It does not mean Scripture. It has some relation to Scripture,
but the written word of Scripture is not of and in itself the Word
of God. Scripture is one thing, the "Word of God" another thing.
Brunner will stake all on the authority of the "Word," but the
argument "It is written" makes no impression on him. (P.323.) .And
he has told us plainly: "He who identifies the letters and words of
the Scriptures with the Word of God has never truly understood the
Word of God." (The Theology of Crisis, p. 19.) The dialectical
theology differentiates sharply between the Word of God and the
word of Scripture. F. Gogarten, a Lutheran adherent of this school
(the present state of theology makes such an alinement possible;
a Lutheran may join what is essentially a Reformed school of thought
and still retain his standing as a Lutheran), says: "Es ist in del'
Tat nicht so, dass fuel' den protestantischen GZauben an Stelle des
lebendigen 1'oemischen Papstes del' tote papierne Papst des Bibelbuch-
stabens getreten waere. Sondern der protestantische Glaube ist auf
das lebendige, gegenwaertige Wort der Bibel gerichtet." (Quoted in
Schrift und Bekenntnis, 1928, p. 100.) What is written in the Bible
in so many letters and words is not the same as the "Word" of
the Bible.
'Wha t, then, is this "~W ord" ? It is hard to understand w h3 t the
dialecticalists mean by this term. It seems they cannot tell us plainly
what is in their mind. A writer in the Lutheran Church Quarterly
says: "I am not sure that I understand all that Barth means by the
Word of God and that I grasp all the implications of his presentation"
(1935, p. 293). The same difficulty is encountered in studying
Brunner. Let him speak for himself. "Scripture knows of no other
'Word of God' save that which has been given, and given in the form
of an event. . .. The "YoI'd of God must be a free gift, through which
God imparts Himself in saving power to tho soul." (P. 214.) Thon on
the next page: "Faith is related - quite consciously and definitely-
to this actual Word, this Word which is an event. To be determined
by this event, this fact of the Word, this Word Incamate, is faith."
(Italics in the original.) Again: "This is the revelation of the living
God, the marvelous vVord of the Scriptures, Jesus, the Christ"
(p. 315); "Jesus is the Logos. He is the Word God has to speak
to us" (p. 232); "God comes in the vVord, in the Personal Word"
(p.334). Once more: "God by His Word cancels the existence of
sin. . .. This Word is Christ. That this Word, the Alpha and the
Omega, speaks to us once more as to those who belong to Him, this
is the reconciliation. . .. The Word is the reality which restores what
was lost, wounded, broken. . .. Justification simply means that this
166 The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology.
objective transaction becomes a 'Word' to us, the Word of God.
When I know that it is God who is speaking to me in this event,-
that God is actually speaking to me, - I believe. Faith means know-
ing that this fact is God speaking to me in His Word." (P.524.)
"Word of God" in the vocabulary of the dialectical theology designates
that transaction by which God, revealing His will to the believer, puts
him into possession of the benefits of Ohrist's death. It may mean
a lot more than this. But this is the basic meaning: the believer
knows that he has forgiveness of sins because God's Word to that
effect came to him, "because God speaks through Ohrist [the personal
Word] to me and thus speaks in me" (p.526).
How is Brunner's "Word of God" related to the Bible~ He does
not hesitate to say that "the Bible is the Word of God" (p.326).
But you must take these words in the Brunnerian sense. In the
first place, he does not mean the whole Bible. He assures us that
parts of the Bible are erroneous. These parts cannot of course be
called God's Word. And only so much of the Bible counts as sets
Ohrist before us. Not the whole Bible is God's Word. "The word
of God in the Scriptures is as little to be identified with the words
of the Scriptures as the Ohrist according to the flesh is to be identified
with the Christ according to the spirit. . .. A better witness than
Martin Luther we can scarcely call up. No man ever lived who knew
better than he what the Bible is to the Ohristian. And Martin Luther
placed side by side these two statements: 'The Scriptures alone are
God's Word' and 'They are the cradle in which Ohrist is laid.' Need
it be mentioned that he busied himself with Biblical criticism? He
who would know what constitutes the Word of God in the Bible"
(italics our own) "must devote himself to Biblical criticism, and, let
it be understood, to searching, fearless, radical criticism." (The
Theology of Grisis, p. 19 f.) 1) And in the second place, in what respect
is what is left of the Bible after radical criticism has finished its work
1) Brunner is distorting the words of Luther. Luther never said that
parts of the Bible are God's Word, other parts not. The statement quoted
does not say it. Luther simply says: "Hie?' [in de?' SohriftJ wirst au
die Windeln und die Krippe jinden, da OMistusinne liegt. . .. Schlechte
und gcril1[1c Wincleln sind es, aber teue1' ist der Schatz, Ohn:stus, de?'
dri'm~en Ueyt." (XIV, p. 4.) The statement simply declares that the
Scriptures contain Christ. It can never be made to say thitt only parts
of the Seripture have to do with Christ - that only parts of Scripture
are Goel's Vlord. And in this same paragraph you can hear Luther
identifying the words of Scripture and the Word of God. "Bitte ".IHZ wa1'ne
treulich einen jeglichen !l'ommen Ohristen, dass el' sich nicht stosse ain del'
eintaeltigen Rede 1[nd Geschl:chte, so ihm oft begegnen wi1'd, sondern zweifie
nioht daran, wie schlecht es immer sich amehen laesst, es seion citel TVol'te,
Werko, (fe1'ichte u.nd (feschicht der hohen goettliohen Mnjesta,et, Jlacht
undWeisheit" - these poor, weak, simple words of the Bible are altogether
and throughout (eitel) words of the great God!
The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology. 167
God's Word? In themselves these words are not the Word of God.
We need the Bible, surely; but only in this sense that God gives us
the Word through this medium. "We need the Bible because through
this tradition alone can we know and understand Ohrist." "Nothing
can stand between God's Word and myself, neither the Bible nor the
Ohurch nor a creed, aZthot.gh God gives us His Word through these
media." (Italics ours. Brunuer, The Word and the World, pp. 85. 75.)
So, in a loose manner of speech, we may call the Bible the Word of
God. ("God's Word is only indirectly identical with the Bible word,
although we have the one only through the other" [The Word and
the World, p.102].) Strictly speaking, only under certain conditions
do the words of the Bible become to us God's Word: only then when
God speaks them to our souls. God's Word is what we hear God
speaking within us, independently of, albeit through the medium of,
the Bible word. When the unconverted read the Bible, are they
dealing with God's Word? No, for the "Word of God must be a free
gift through which God imparts Himself in saving power to the
soul." Justification becomes God's Word to us. Only to the believer
does God's Word come. (See above.) "This testimony [of the
apostles], this WOTd about Christ, becomes to us in the perceptions
of faith the very Word of God." (P.575.) "That which creates the
power to obey is the Word, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is attested
as God's Word by the Holy Spirit." (P.589.) "Nothing can stand
between God's Word and myself, neither the Bible, etc. Believe
I must in His own 'Vord alone, and believe I can only because and
when He speaks His own Word within me through His Holy Spirit."
(The Word and the World, p.75.) The Bible is not God's real, own
Word. You must distinguish between the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is not sufficient to impart the saving knowledge. You must
wait for the Spirit.
Barth's position is the same. It has been summarized thus:
"Nur wenn ein Wort unser Herz trifft, ist es nach Barth Gotteswort,
sonst Menschenwort, sei es in der Schrift selbst, sei es in der Predigt."
(CONC. THEOL. MON., 1935, p.846.) A. Keller, an adherent of Barth,
thus summarizes Barth's teaching: "When we call the Bible the
Word of God, we are not referring to the human interpretation of
God's Word, but only to the act of faith by which we believe in the
God who speaks in the Bible wherel'er, whenever, and through what-
ever words He ?V'ill." (Religion and Revolution, p. 66.) Barth sharply
distinguishes between the word of the Bible and the word of the
Spirit. He keeps on repcating, on one page: "Schrift und Geist,"
"Schrift und Geist," "Geist und S chrift" (Das Wort Gottes und die
Theol., p. 186). On the same page: "We appeal to the open Bible
and to the Spirit, who speaks out of it to the spirit." Page 189: "Das
durch SchT):tt und Geist verkuendigte TV ort Gottes." Otto Fricke
168 The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology.
puts it thus: "Nur in der Kirche ist dM auf Grund der BcMift
geredete 'Wort Gottes: . .. Wann ist eine Predigt schriftgemaess?
Wenn sie sich moeglichst wort- und sinngetreu an das Wort der
Bchrift anschliesst? N ein! Denn wort- und sinngetreue Wicde1'gabe
des Bibeltextes koennte durchaus die Wiedergabe toter W orte und
Buchstaben sein, und das waere dann durchaus NICHT schriftgemaess.
Bchriftgemaess ist eine Predigt dann, wenn sie die Bchrift wiedergibt
als Gotteswort. DaoS geschieht dadurch, dMS sie sich zunaechst der
Autoritaet der Bchrift als dem Worte Gottes auf der ganzen Linie
unterwirft, dass sie in jedem Wort der Bchrift mit dem Deus dixit
einfach rechnet und niemals mit diesem Deus dixit nicht rechnet, dass
sie daneben in voelliger Freiheit deT SCh1'ift gegenuJebersteht, indem
sie sich bewusst ist, dass erst ih1'e jeweilige Entscheidung das be-
treffende Wort der B chrift zum W orte Gottes machen kann" - the
decision [intention, attitude? - whatever this may mean] of the
sermon in any given case is needed to make any particular word of
Scripture the Word of God. (Zwischen Zeit en, 1928, pp.ll0. 122.)
Gogarten puts it thus: "Der Unterschied zwischen dem katholischen
und protestantischen Glauben ist aber der, dass fuer den protestan-
tischen Olau,ben in aZZer Verlebendigung und Vergegenwaertigung,
die das Bibelwort erfahren muss, umihm wirlcZich Gegenstand werden
zu koennen, es doch nichts ande1'es als das WORT der Bibel ist, au'f
dM er ge1'ichtct ist." Bchrift und Bekenntnis points out what this
involves: "Es handelt sich darum, ob der Bibelbuchstabe an sich ein
totes Ding sei, das erst von aussen her 'verlebendigt und vergegen-
waertigt' werden nwesse, um im Herzen der Leser octer Hoerer geist-
liche Wirkungen, rechte Erkenntnis der Suende, wahren, seligmachen-
den Glaub en, also Bekehrung und Erneuerung hervorbringen zu
koennen" (1928, p. 100).