<1!nurnrbtu
lH4tnlngirtt! ' !lntd41y
Continuing
LEHRE UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN PUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLy-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. X July, 1939 No.7
CONTENTS
Page
lDfant Baptism. E. w. A. Koehler __________ .... 481
Holy Scripture or Christ? Th. Engelder ___ 491
The False Arguments for the Modem Theory of Open Questions
Walther-Arndt . __ ._ .. _ ... _ ...... ___ ..... __ . ___ 507
The Institutional Missionary and the Spiritual Rehabilitation of
the Prisoner. E. A. DuemllDg __ .. _______ . _____ 514
Anfechtung und Trost im Spaetmittelalter. Th. Laetsch _. ___ 520
Predigtentwuerfe fuer die Evangelien der Thomasius-
Perikopenreihe .... _ .. ____ . ______________ . 528
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches ___ _ 537
Book Review.-Literatur .. ... ___ . __ . _ .. _____ ._. ____ ._ 553
ElD Prediger mUSII Dicht alleln tDei-
deft.. alIo dass er die Schafe unter-
weise. wle lII.e rechte Christen IOnen
1eIn. sondern auch claneben den Woel-
fen tDeh'l"eta, daII lII.e die Schafe Dichl
anarelfen und mit falBcher Lehre ver-
tuebren und Irrtum elDfuebren.
Luthet".
Es 1st keln Ding. daI die IAuta
mehr be! der Klrche bebaelt dean
die gute Predigt. - Apolo~. Are. JL
U the trumpet give an uncertaJn
sound who IIhall prepare h1mMU to
the battle? - 1 CM.14. I.
PubUshed for the
Ev. Luth. Synod of MIssouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PUBLISJUNG BOUSE, St. Louts, Mo.
!i:_ ~ ~ I" )
~¥
ARC lVE
Theological Observer - .!Htd)Hd)'3eitgefd)id)tlid)es 537
Theological Observer - ~itdjndj~gdtgefdjidjtndje~
The "Christian Heral.d" on Lutheran Union. - Its May issue has
this item: "We reported two months back that there was a doctrinal
hurdle between the American Lutherans and the United Lutherans,
keeping them apart in their discussions on joining their forces. Now we
report that they have taken the hurdle and find themselves a long step
nearer union. The question was one of Biblical infallibility. The state-
ment on which they agree is this: 'By virtue of a unique operation ... .' "
(Our readers are familiar with this statement in the Pittsburgh Declara-
tion.) "Three large bodies of Lutherans - the United, American, and
Missouri Synod bodies - contain more than 3,500,000 of the 4,800,000
Lutherans in the United States. They stand in a fair way now, with
this agreement of doctrinal statement to work on, to overcome the open
disagreement which has separated them. We look for big Lutheran news
in 1939."
Not so fast! We fear that it will take more than half a year to get
the United Lutheran Church to accept, as a body, a statement which
might be understood as teaching the verbal inspiration and inerrancy
of all Scripture. Com.pare what a reviewer in the L1,themn Chu. ~;,"
Qua?'te?'ly (U. L. C.) says on the booklets of Drs. Klinck and Arndt i,.,
the S. S. TeachcT-Tmining SeTies: "In both books the Bible is assumed
to be the verbally inspired, absolutely infallible revelation of God.
Accordingly, its statements are taken to be final, not only in matters
of faith and life, but also in matters of history, geography, science, and
the like. Of scientific, critical study of the sources there is not a L.lce.
Nor is there any indication that the philosophical, theological, historical,
sociological, and psychological researches of modern times have made
any contribution whatsoever to our understanding of life and its prob-
lems. Perhaps the type of treatment was necessitated by space limits
or by a consideration of the needs and abilities of the persons for whom
the books were prepared-present and prospective Sunday-school
teachers; perhaps dogmatic presuppositions had something to do with it.
Whatever the reasons for the type of treatment, the fact remains that
this treatment is limited to uncritically interpreted Biblical materials.
Here lie both the strength and the weakness of the books. For those
who accept the fundamental thesis that the Bible is infallible in every
detail, the treatment will prove, in the main, highly satisfactory; for
those who do not, it will not. It may probably be assumed that the
persons for whom the books were specifically written do accept it. For
them, therefore, the books could hardly be better."
We doubt, too, that the .Ll1l..merican Lutheran Church will, as a body?
be satisfied with a declaration which does not explicitly declare for the
inerrancy of all parts of Scripture. And we do not know why the
Missouri Synod is mentioned in this connection. "They," U. L. C., A. L. C.,
and Missouri, "stand in a fair way now, with this agreement to work on,
to overcome," etc. We cannot well "work on" this agreement. Besides,
it is not only the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture which is here
involved. The Christian Herald should not speak of "a doctrinal hurdle,"
which is keeping the Lutherans apart. There are differences in other
doctrines, just as important as the one mentioned, which keep the Amer-
ican Lutheran Church and the Synodical Conference apart from the
United Lutheran Church. E.
Un-Lutheran Teaching in the U. L. C. A. - The article by Dr. A. J.
Traver on "The Means of Grace," published in the Lutheran of May 10,
contains some good Lutheran doctrine. "Our part is only to accept what
Jesus Christ offers. Grace is a gift. . .. How do we receive this grace?
We believe that God uses means by which He sends His grace upon us .
. . . Suppose there were no Word and no Sacraments. This would make
us depend on our own human reason. . .. As we need grace, so we
need the means by which grace is made available for us." The article,
however, presents also some un-Lutheran teaching. We read: "Lu-
therans have not been satisfied with the statement that the Bible contains
the Word of God. This is of course true, but not all the truth. It might
mean that the Bible contained a great deal that was error. Then it
would mean that we would have to select the true from the false in the
Bible, a most dangerous liberty. Naturally, we would be influenced by
our own desires. We would accept what we wanted to accept and reject
what we did not want. The Bible is the Word of God in the statement
of our faith. It is true in all 111.atters that pertain to religion." (Italics
our own.) "It is not a text for biology or for chemistry. It knows
nothing of electricity or of airplanes. There is no reason that it should.
These are matters for the investigation and discovery of the human mind.
But man by his own wisdom cannot know God. The Bible is the reve-
lation of God to us, the gracious gift of salvation comes to us thTough the
Bible." (Italics in original.) The Lutheran is repeating here what it has
been emphasizing the last few years. It wants the Church to know that
it rejects the teaching that every statement made by the holy writers is
true. "It is true in all matters that pertain to religion," but in all other
matters, scientific and the like, its statements need not be accepted. That
is un-Lutheran teaching. The Lutheran statement "The Bible is the
Word of God" means nothing because of the restriction "It is true in all
matters that pertain to religion." Our readers will remember that a
layman found the U. L. C. Declaration on the Word of God and Scripture
unacceptable because of its contradictory teachings. He wrote: "In
Section 5 this declaration says: 'We therefore accept the Scriptures as
the infallible truth of God in all matters that pertain to His revelation
and our salvation.' What as to matters that do not pertain to His revela-
tion and our salvation? Are some portions of the Scriptures not in-
fallible? Is not that a plausible inference? It would appear to this
writer that in Section 6 this position is contradicted when it is asserted:
'Therefore we believe that the whole body of Scripture in all its parts is
the Word of God.''' We can sympathize with this layman. We must
confess that our theological mind works just like the layman's mind.
We do not know how the minds of those theologians work who can say
in one breath that Scripture in all its parts is the Word of God and that
some portions of Scripture are not true. Least of all can we understand
how Lutheran theologians can thus speak of the Bible.
Theological Observer - .RitdjHdj~.8eitgefdjidjmdjes 539
Dr. Traver then goes on to utter some most un-Lutheran thoughts
on the Lord's Supper. "Bread and wine are the earthly elements. The
body and blood of Christ are the heavenly gifts promised in the Sacra-
ment. We must not place a crass or unnatural interpretation on these
gifts of the Sacrament. They are the life of Christ, freely given for us.
As the bread and wine become a part of the body through eating, so the
Christ becomes a part of our souls through faith." That is a denial of
the real presence of the body and blood of Christ. Any Reformed theo-
logian would subscribe to the teaching that what Christ gives us to eat
and to drink is "the life of Christ, freely given for us." The Reformed
have always taught that the words "body," "blood" mean the efficacy
and benefits of Christ's death.
When the Pittsburgh Statement (on Inspiration, etc.) was accepted,
the church-papers stated: "All controverted points of difference between
the United Lutheran Church and the American Lutheran Church have
now been amicably adjusted so far as the two commissions are con-
cerned." All controverted points of difference? Within the U. L. C. body
the Reformed doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper is publicly pro-
claimed. (See also C. T. M., VIII, p.544, on an article in the Lutheran
Church Quarterly of October, 1936.) The A. L. C. teaches the Lutheran
doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper. Surely not all controverted
points of difference between these two bodies have been amicably
adjusted.
Then there is the doctrine of conversion. Dr. Traver does not touch
on this in his article, but our subject is: Un-Lutheran Teaching in the
U. L. C. A. U. L. C. theologians have written the following: "Others,
after the manner of Missouri, have been so cautious lest they should
claim for man any credit for his salvation - a very laudable desire-
that they have, in order to give all the glory to God's grace, failed to
recognize that man's part in the work of salvation is essential, even
though it is not meritorious." "Conversion is largely one's own act.
God first makes it possible; but then the responsibility rests upon our-
selves to determine whether or not we will comply with the truth brought
to our understanding." "If we inquire what it is that influences men one
way or the other when the Spirit of God brings them face to face with
Christ and urges them to accept the Savior, the answer is that they are
influenced by the motives, good or evil, which stir in their hearts and
which they finally put first." These and many other similar pronounce-
ments appeared in official organs of the U. L. C. and in text-books pub-
lished within this body. We need not indicate the sources here, -the
U. L. C. men will readily admit that synergistic teaching is tolerated by
their Church. We cannot understand why editors of Lutheran papers
will say that all controverted points of difference have now been
amicably adjusted. E.
The Editor does Not Agree with the Contributor. - In the article
"Some Thoughts on Inspiration," published in the Journal of the Amer-
ican Lutheran Conference, May issue, Dr. Hjalmar W. Johnson of the
Augustana Synod uttered several un-Lutheran thoughts. He said:
"You sometimes hear conscientious Lutheran pastors make the statement
that unless you accept the verbal inspiration theory, you are not a con-
540 Theological Observer - oRitdjlidj,,fjdtgefdjidjtlidjd
sistent Lutheran." "The human element appears also in certain dis-
crepancies which the student of the Scriptures will observe. . .. The
human element appears also with sad realism in the imprecatory psalms .
. . . In these passages (Ps. 69: 24; 58: 6-10; 109: 8,9,10; 137: 9) the human
- or shall I say inhuman? - element is sadly evident." "Christ Himself
affirmed that Moses was not correct on the subject of divorce. If Christ
felt free to take issue with Moses on the subject of divorce, which con-
cerns human beings, must we insist that Genesis is a source book in
geology, which deals not with human beings but with inanimate reality?"
"With specific reference to one theory widely prevalent among many
earnest Christians, it may be noted that even so theologically conserva-
tive a Church as the Roman Catholic does not teach the verbal in-
spiration of the Scriptures. . .. In the well-known Catholic weekly OU]'
Sunday Visitor (Nov. 4, 1934) this paragraph appears: 'The Church has
never taught the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. All that we are
bound to believe is that every book, and every part of every book, in
both the Old and the New Testament is the Word of God. In the many
translations of the Bible which we have today it would be impossible to
hold that every word was inspired, because that would mean that the
translator as well as the original writer, of the Scriptures had the special
assistance of Almighty God.'''
The editor of the Journal, in an addendum, takes the contributor
severely to task. "There are a number of points at which I find myself
at variance with the learned author of the foregoing article." ,Ve have
space for only some of the points repudiated by Dr. Dell. "What the
Catholic Church teaches or does not teach can hardly be a criterion for
the Lutheran Church." As to the statement of the contributor "You
sometimes hear conscientious Lutheran pastors make the statement that,
unless you accept the verbal inspiration theory, you are not a consistent
Lutheran. What can be done to help such brethren realize that such
statements are by no means a defense of Lutheranism but, on the con-
trary, constitute a lapse from it?" the editor says: "As I am one of 'such
brethren' who have lapsed from Lutheranism by stating that belief in
verbal inspiration is truly Lutheran, I rise to' defend my position once
more, 'Verbal inspiration' and 'inspiration' are the same thing. If the
Bible is inspired, it is verbally inspired. If it is not verbally inspired, it
is not inspired at all. . .. When our synodical constitution says that
we accept the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as
our authority, they are breathing a faith in verbal inspiration; for Scrip-
tures are words. If they are words of men, they have no authority. If
they are the Word of God, they are inspired words. When the Missouri
Synod states: 'We teach also that the verbal inspiration of the Scrip-
tures is not a so-called "theological deduction," but it is taught by direct
statements of the Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3: 16; John 10: 35; Rom. 3: 2; 1 Cor.
2: 13,' there can be no doubt that this large body of Lutherans 'officially'
teaches verbal inspiration and does not consider it a theory. . .. If only
men are inspired and not the words which they wrote, how can we say
in our synodical confessions that the canonical Scriptures are our
authority? How can we say that the Bible 'as a whole and in all its
parts' is the Word of God? The Bible in all its parts is words, nothing
Theological Observer - .Ritd)lid).,(leitgefd)id)t1id)cs 541
but words. If there is no verbal inspiration, the Bible is not inspired.
When we, therefore, speak of verbal inspiration, we are speaking of the
fact of inspiration and not of some 'man-made' theory as to the method
of inspiration." "The Holy Spirit used the words of Scripture to con-
vince us that the words of Scripture are reliable. And you say that
Lutherans do not 'officially' believe in verbal inspiration? Pardon me
if I say that I am unable to follow you." "What was Jesus' attitude
toward the Old Testament? He said: 'The Scriptures cannot be broken.'
He quoted the Scriptures as reliable truth, 'beginning at Moses and all
the prophets' (Luke 24). He evidently thought that Moses was inspired.
But Dr. Johnson says: 'Christ Himself affirmed that Moses was not cor-
rect on the subject of divorce.' . .. The question here is: Did Moses
write what God gave him to write at that time? Jesus does not con-
demn Moses for writing what he wrote. He condemns the Jews for the
hardness of their hearts, which made an inferior law necessary."
"Toward the end the author quotes from Dr. Sodergren: 'If some other
brother should insist that physical death came into the world with the
fall of Adam and Eve, - as Milton does in Pa.ra.dise Lost, - when God
has written into the strata of the earth a record of death long before
Adam, we have no right to blame the Bible for this brother's interpre-
tation.' I see here, and elsewhere in that last part, a surrender to the
theory of evolution. If the fact of verbal inspiration must be called
a theory in order to make room alongside it for another theory, which
even men of science vigorously dispute, our faith is in a bad way. You
not only condemn Milton, but you condemn St. Paul, who wrote: 'As by
one man sin entered into the world and death by sin; and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.' "
The concluding paragraph reads: "I could say a great deal more, but
I desist. The article by Dr. Johnson is being printed because pressure
was brought to bear by his brethren. But I could not let it go as an ex-
pression of the faith of the American Lutheran Conference. I could not
pass by without challenge the condescending statement that brethren
who believe in verbal inspiration - who believe, in other words, that
the Bible is a reliable record of revealed truth - should be corrected in
their Lutheranism." E.
D. Weu iilier mlllt~er unb bie l5d)rift, lietiteU ''Walther and the
Church". :Die eben genannte ®d)rift ~at befanntIid) aI§ ~erfaffer bie
:DoH:oren :DaIfmann, :Dau unb (fugelber. D. Weu fd)rewt bariibet in ber
"Stird)Hd)en 2eitfd)tif±": ,,[:Da§ mud)] ift af§ tyeftgabe gebad)t aUt @:rin~
netung an bie @:inroanberung bet ®ad)fen bor ~unbert :;Sa~ren. @:§ ~utte
bem @ebiid)tnt§ an bie§ folgenteid)e @:reigni§ etroa§ gefe~rt, roenn nidjt ein
mudj roie biefe§ erfdjienen roure; benn bie btei ®d)riften, bie ~iet in ge~
brungtet tyorm bargeboten roetben, roaren bon grunbIegenber Watur fUr bie
IDCiffourifLJnobe unb roeH iiber biefe ~inau§. Unb foUten fie in i~ren Sjau,IJt~
gebanfen roeiterroirfen, fo mUf3ten fie in engHfd)er ®,lJrad)e bargeboten
roerben.
"mei ber 2eftiire ber brei meitruge, bie our jilliirbigung jillart~er5 ~in~
augefiigt roerben, mod)te man bieIfeid)t einmal ben @:inbrucl' ~aben, aI§ griffe
bie jilliirbigung au ~od). 2lber aud) IDlunner, bie 2eitgenoffen, ia ®egner
542 Theological Observer - .RitdjHdj'3eltgefdjidjtIidjes
5ffiartljers geroefen finb, fcljlugen £lei feinem ~ob faUln geringere ~i.ine an.
~ie Bu±ljarll±frlje ,SHrcljenaeiiung' frljrieb: ,'illlU iljm ift ciner ber ®ro13en in
ber S1!irclje GSfjrifti ljeimgegangen, ein lmann, ber nicljt mtr in ber fircljIicljen
®efcljiclj±e t(fmerifn.s cine elJocljen1l1cljcnbe ~erfi.inrtcljrett unb bort ber ljer~
borragenbe {yuljre.r unb @lammfer ber 2utljeraner roar, foubem beffen m3irf~
famfeH in ber Iu±ljerifcljen SHrclje aITer m3efttetle nIs eine macljiig anregenbe
emlJfunben rourbe. ~er ®rfoIg feiner ~rbei± ift in ber neueren @efcljicljte
un] erer S1irdje fnf± beiflJieHos unb rennaeidjnet iljn nicljt nur aIS einen l))(ann
bon gro13cn ~nlagen, eifemem (SIei13 unb fertener Cfnergie, fonbem Ia13t in
iljm eine lJrol,rbcntielIe ~erfi.inlid)fci± cdennen, role ber ,\;)Cfrr feiner S1!irclje
fie fenbet, luenn er Fe befonbere jffiC(1C fi.\ljren rom.' Unb Dr. @liegmunb
{yritfdjeI fd)rieli (SiircljenbIa±±, 1.;'Sunr 1887): ,:;Sn bem ,\)ei1l1gegangenen
berIiett bie rutI)erifclje SHtdje eincn ii]rer mannljnftef±en Shetter, iljrer ge~
fegnetften 3eugen, iljrer mnnnljnfieften ~eoIogen. @lei± bem :;Saljre 1839
I)nt er bie reidjen ®aben feines @eiftes in ben :rlienft ber Iutljerifcljen Slirdje
?Tmerifas geftem unb an iljrem ~ufbau innerljalb ber lmiffourif1)nobe mit
ganaer, boITer, riicfljar±rofer ,I;)innebung oljne ®rmuben, mit freubiger Q3e~
geifterung bis an fein ®nbe gearbei±e±. lInb @o±±es Q3armf)eriligfct± ljat aUf
Das m3ed friner S;)ci:nbe ®ebeiljen llcIen± unD iljn bie('fruclj± friaet Wrbeit
fcljauen raffcn, luie ei3 roenig lmenfcfJll1 berglinnt ift. ~ie fO(illouriji)nobe mit
iljrcr geluaWncn ~ht;;breitung, i~rer fcjt\1cfug±en ;Organi\rrticm, tljnr rafb
Tofen fircljHdjen ~atigfei±, iljrer eigenartigen, bie Iu±ljerifdje \.BefenntnisIeljre
,nit H)rcn @lonberfeljren au felter @efdjloffenI)eit 3ufmnmenfaffenben ~ljeo~
logic ift im eminen±en @linn fein m3etf, ber er ben 6iemvel feines @eifies
in anw Q3eaieljungen cmfgebriid't ljat unb in bet iljm bie lBerroirUic9ung bey
®ebanfen feilIes l:'cIJCl1S noclj mit feinen einenen 2Tugen clU feI)Cl1 befd)ieben
iuar. @lie IcIbf± ljinillieberum, Die bon iljm gegrunbete unD (lcfiif)rte @li)l1obe,
ialj in iljm iljrc gleicljfam bcrfnrvert, unb es burfbt feIF lDCl1ig (Salle
ficlj nacljluci[cn [ni1C11 , in benen eille ljcrborragenDe ~erFilIIic9fei± in ber bon
iljr gcIeiteten fircljfidjen @emeinfcljafi einen gIeiclj ±iefgteifenben ltnb rrlIes
beqerrlcljenben Cfinf[u13 ausgeubt ljat.' - ®s lrirb uns auclj tvieberljoIt be~
aeltgt, ba13 Dr. @l. (Sritl ([leI bie .