Full Text for The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology, part 2 (Text)

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). al of its spiritua,l content. . .. The> teTm 'Wmel of Goel' should be used with discrimination. It is no longer tenable, to use it as a, synonym for the entire Bible" in spite of the re,fmmeTs. The term is a reve'rent one and should be applied only when it can be done, with the utmost reverence. To us the 'Word of God' is the' validly spiritual content which rises unmistakably in Scriptuml utterances and in the pronounce- ment of Christ-like, seers." (What Is Lutheranism? pp. 2,79'. 294.) 172 The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology. (2 Thess. 2, 15); "What I write unto you are the commandments of God" (1 Cor. 14,37); "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine," etc. (2 Tim. 3, 16); "IV c have also a more sure word of prophecy" - the prophecy of the Scriptu.re (2 Pet. 1, 19 f.).3) The cry that the written word of Scripture is a dead thing; that "the Bible must not stand between God's Word and myself"; that "that which creates the power to obey is the Word as it is attested as God's Word by the Holy Spirit"; that "the word of the Bible must be vitalized" has been raised in the Church long before the rise of the dialectical theology, and always the Lutheran theologians have op- posed it, on the basis of Scripture. The Quakers long ago raised the cry that the word of Scripture is a "dead letter," useless unless the Spirit gave it life. And before them the Heavenly Prophets and the Anabaptists said the same. Luther would have none of this. "For them [the enthusiasts] the letter is a dead thing on paper. But John says: 'These things have I written unto you' (lJohn5,13); 'These things are written that ye might believe' (John 20, 31)." And after quoting, in addition, 2 Tim. 3,15-17 and 1 Tim. 4,13, he asks: "Why does the apostle command that the Scriptures be read if they are a dead thing?" (IX, p.1514). "At the present time all the land is swarming with these spirits who, deranged by the devil, look upon Scripture as a dead letter, which cannot give life, and pride them- selves on dealing with naught but the Spirit - and they lose both Word and Spirit. But here (1 Cor. 15, 3. 4) you see how St. Paul bases all on Scripture and declares that in no other way can our do chine and faith be founded and preserved than through the ex- ternal, written Word, set down in letters and proclaimed by the mouth of the preachers; for he says clearly: 'Scripture! Scripture!'" (VITI, p.1110.) The Lutheran dogmaticians took the same stand. They would not let the Quakers make of Scripture a "dead letter." Quenstedt: "We say that there is a natural efficacy in the Word of God because it naturally belongs to it, and its essence and nature are such that it could not be the true Word of God unless it con- tained within itself that divine power and virtue to convert men, etc." And Hollaz adds to this: "~or is there any other Word of God which is in God or with which men of God have been inspired than that which is given in the Scriptures." (H. Schmid, Dod. Theology of the Ev. Luth. Ohwch, p. 504 f.) A. Graebner: "The efficacy of the Bible is that property hy which the Bible has indissolubly united with the true and genuine sense expressed in its words the power of the Holy Spirit." (O?dlines of Dod. Theol., § 16.) Quenstedt has a long list of men who distinguished between the word as written, the bare external word, and the powerful word of the Spirit. "Antithesis: 3) Cpo the article in this issue Non est vis magica, pp. 179. 184. The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology. 173 1. Schwenkfeldianorum, Weigelianorum, Enthusiastarum, Anabap- tis taTUm aliorumque fanatico1'um, ut ... H erm. Rathmanni, ... all of whom divide the Word of God into an inner and an external word. And only to the inner word (by which they understand the Son of God Himself or the Spirit of God coming from heaven and working in the heart of man ... ) they ascribe divine power; from the external word, as being a human voice, an evanescent sound, and dead letter, they take away all power and efficacy and divine power. . .. 7. Tremulan- titt1n in Anglia. 8. Iohannis de Labadie." If Quenstedt were writing to-day, he would add: "9. Barthianorum." Is Barthianism indeed enthusiasm? The classic Lutheran defini- tion of enthusiasm runs thus: "In those things which concern the spoken, outward Word we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one except through or with the preceding out- ward Word, in order that we may [thus] be protected against the enthusiasts, i. e., spirits who boast that they have the Spirit without and before the Word, ... who wish to be acute judges between the Spirit and the letter." (Smalc. Art., Tl'igl., p.495.) An enthusiast is onc who bases his doctrine, and grounds his faith and hope, not on the Word written in Scripture, but on the Spirit. Brunner has the same definition. "Faith tends towards mysticism ... if men maintain that it is possible to hold direct, i=ediate communion with the exalted Lord not mediated through the Word. This is the fanaticism which would turn the believer into a prophet." (P.585.) Brunner, one sees, abhors fanaticism (enthusiasm, Schwaermerei); but he and his associates are practising this very Schwa,ermerei, not indeed in its gross form, but in a subtle form. The very phrase used by him: "not mediated through the Word," reveals their Schwaermerei. God deals with us only through "the Word." But recall their definition of "Word." The letter of Scripture is not the Word of God. It only becomes God's Word through an additional action of the Spirit. The Bible must not stand between God's Word and myself. Faith is created only when God speaks His own Word within me through His Holy Spirit. (Quotation given above.) So dependence can be put on the written word of Scripture, not in itself, but only because of an intervening act of the Spirit. Brunner is not a gross enthusiast, one who has practically no use for Scripture, but he is a subtle enthusiast in that he "judges between the Spirit and the letter." God deals with us through the written word, Brunner insists; but he and his as- sociates insist just as strongly that the written word is in itself a dead letter. It needs to be vitalized. And that is spiritualism, enthusiasm, Schwaermerei. The point at issue is not whether it takes the power of the Spirit to create faith. We are agreed on that. But the Lu- theran says that this power is inherent in the Word of Scripture and the dialecticalists say it must first be put there. Much less is this 174 The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology. the point at issue, whether some deal with the Word of Scripture without experiencing its power. Man has the power to make the living Word of Scripture of no effect. The sole point at issue is whether, when a man is converted, etc., he owes that to the Word of Scripture or to the power of the Spirit that was infused into the written Word at a given moment. The latter is the contention of the dialecticalists. And that is Schw'aermerei. That separates the letter and the Spirit. Something is needed beside the written Word to save us! That is a species of the "Extra-Enthusiasticum." - Katten- busch agrees with this verdict. «Die ThesB der Barthianer lautet: Gott WIRKT 'NUR' UNMITTELBAR, vom Himmel her" (Die deutsche ev. Theologie J p. 128)." 4) What is the evil of enthusiasm? TH. ENGELDER. (To be oontinued.) 4) The dialectica,l theology, an. offshoot of Reformed theology, comes by its Sohwaermerei naturally. The germ of enthusiasm was lodged in Reformed theology from the very bpginning. "Salvation is obtained in no other way than hy the believer's putting his confidence in the written Word, in Baptism, in the Lord's Supper, and in absolution. The Reformed declare that this way of getting into heaven is too mechanical, and on hearing the Lutheran teadling, they denounce it as dead-letter worship. . .. They say: 'My sins are not forgiven except when God Himself speaks these words in my heart and makes me feel their force.' That is the Reformed view." (O,F.W.Walther, Law and Gospe~, p.151.) Quenstedt has in his list: "5. Plero1·umq·ue GalvinianoTum"; and while he quotes Oalvin's statement (Institutes, Book IV, cha,p.14, § 17: tha,t which God claims for Himself must not be ascribed to the outwa,rd a.ction)" Dr. Walther adds a quota,- tion from Zwingli to the effect that faith is not produced by the eaJterna concio, the "outward preaching," but alone by the Holy Spirit. (See Zwingli's Augslmrg Confession, in Luther's works, XX, p. 1566. - Baier, I, p, 161.) Reformed theology denies that the power of the Spirit inheres in the outward Word. Second Helvetic Confession, chap. 18: "Let us believe that God teaches us outwardly in His \Vord through the ministers, but that inwaJ'illy He' leads the: hea,rts of His eled to faith through the Holy Spirit." O. Hodge: "It is, necessa,ry, in ordm to rendm' the' Word of God an effectual means of salvation, that it should be attended by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit," "The Lutherans, on the other hand, teach that there is inJtm'ent in the divine Word a supernatural, divine virtue, inseparable from it." (Syst. The·o~., II,. 684; III,472:, 505.) W. Shedd: "The influence of the ITaly Spirit is directly upon the human spirit and is, independent of the 'iVord itself." (Dogm, Theol., II, 501.) J. G. Machen: "Proclama,tion of the La,w, in wo,rd and in deed, can prepare for the experience [thel conviction o·f sin], but the experience' itself comes from God." (Glwistianity and Libera~ism, p. 67.) The Reformed "acute disoenw1'e vol1mt inter Spiritum ot literam" (Schma,lc. Art". see above,). Cp, the article Non est vis magica in this issue, p. 177. The dialecticalists, in their own way, do the same.