(!Tnurnr~iu
(UQtnlnguul flnut41y
Continuing
LEHRE UND VVEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LUTH. HOMILETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. X August, 1939 No.8
CONTENTS
Page
The Mode of Baptism. Walter A. Baepler _______________________________ ____________ 561
Holy Scripture or Christ? Th_ Engeldcr __ __ __ _ _____ ___________________________ 571
The False Arguments for the Modern Theory of Open Questions
Walther-Guebert_____________________________________ __ ____ 587
Kleine Prophetenstudien. L_ Fuerbringer ________ ________________________ 595
Festival Address at Academic Service. Theo. Buenger _______ _____ 605
Predigtentwuerfe fuer die Evangelien der Thomasius-
Perikopenreihe __________________________________________________________ 614
Miscellanea _______________________________________________________ 622
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich -Zeitgeschichtliches ________ 625
Book Review. - Literatur ________________________________________________ 634
lCIn Predlger mUll! ntcht aDem wei-
dell, also dus er die Schafe unter-
weise. wle de rechte Cbrlsten IOllen
Ieln. IIOndem auch daneben den Woel-
ten weh"", dull de die Schafe n1cht
~lten und mit fal8cher Lehre ver-
tuebren und Irrtum elntuebren.
LutheT.
Ell tat teln Dlng. daI cUe Leute
mehr be! der Klrche behae1t denn
die gute PrecU&t. - Apologte. An. 14.
If the trumpet £lve an uneertaln
sound who IIhall prepare hlmHU to
the baWe? -1 eM. 14. t.
Published for the
BY. Luth. S)'DOd of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PlJBUSBING BOUSE, St. Louis, Mo.
ARCH IV
False Arguments for Modern Theory of Open Questions 587
exalting the authority of Christ, they go straightly against His
teaching and directly renounce His authority.
They lose everything, the Bible as the sure authority for doc-
trine, and Christ, as the sure foundation of faith. And as to their
sneering question: Are you willing to base your faith on a mere
book? we answer: We are not ashamed to go to a book, when that
book brings us Christ. Luther was not ashamed of his book-
religion. He thought highly of the despised "letter." "Today, too,
roving spirits are clinging to the illusion and demanding that God
must do something special in their case and deal with them through
a special light and secret revelation in the heart and thus give the
Holy Spirit, as though they needed no letter, Scripture, or external
preaching. Therefore we must know that God has established this
order: Noone shall come to the knowledge of Christ nor obtain
the forgiveness gained by Him or the Holy Ghost except through
external means." (XI, p.1735.) Pay no attention to their cry that
this insistence on the letter and this reliance on the promise as
written in Scripture can produce only a mere intellectual con-
viction, devoid of life, fervor, and Spirit. You know better. "When
I am without the Word, do not thiILk of it nor deal with it, no
Christ is there and no zest, no spirit. But as soon as I take up
a psalm or passage of Scripture, it shines and burns into the heart
and puts me into a different mind and mood." (Luther, VIII, 749.)
TH. ENG ELDER
The False Arguments for the Mod.ern Theory
of Open Questions
A Translation of Dr. C. F. W. Walther's Article Entitled "Die falschen
Stuetzen der modernen Theorie von den offenen Fragen,"
Lehre und Wehre, XIV (1868)
(Continued)
The assumption of a successive origin of dogmas through so-
called decisions of the Church, by which some men seek to uphold
the modern theory of open questions, militates, in the second place,
against the relationship existing between Scripture and Christian
faith. Besides its clarity, which should enable everyone to com-
prehend its articles of faith, and, furthermore, its power to generate
faith in those articles, Scripture possesses 1) perfection or suf-
ficiency, i. e., the attribute of containing and presenting in clear and
convincing words all the dogmas which one must know and believe
in order to be saved; and 2) canonical, normative authority, ac-
cording to which it alone decides whether a certain dogma is truly
Christian or not. Scripture, in short, is the only criterion for de-
588 False Arguments for Modern Theory of Open Questions
termining the Christian religion and theology, the only source of
Christian truth from which we can actually draw reliable facts,
the only rule and norm of all faith and life, and the supreme judge,
rendering the final decision in all controversies on any points
of faith.
No special proof is necessary for these statements among those
who want to be true Protestants. But the Scriptural principle
mentioned above is unequivocably rejected by all those modern
theologians who claim that dogmas are gradually formulated and
finally established by the unanimous consent and decisions of the
Church. Their opinion is that, as long as the Church has not yet
definitely spoken, certain dogmas cannot be considered as con-
clusively settled, because they are "still pending and unfinished,"
"still in a nascent stage," "not yet fundamental doctrines," "for
the time being only private and individual points of view which
in themselves may be well-founded Christian convictions and the
current results of conscientious and faithful Bible-study," and con-
sequently "differing opinions and convictions are not only unavoid-
able but also justified and permissible, since the question regarding
their Scripturalness is still undecided." Therefore, they say, since
these dogmas are still "open questions," everyone must have the
privilege of exercising his "permissible ecclesiastical freedom"
therein, or "perhaps it would be better to exclude altogether from
the Christian pulpit those points which are most in dispute."
From their point of view, then, anyone has the liberty to accept
or reject what God has revealed and decided in His Word as long
as the Church has not yet spoken and rendered her decision; but
as soon as the Church has spoken, all liberty has come to an end!
This hypothesis fills every Christian "..,ith consternation, be-
cause he not only believes that the Bible contains the Word of God,
but that the Bible is the Word of God and because he clearly dis-
cerns the destructive consequences which accompany the theory
under consideration. This hypothesis is also diametrically opposed
to the perspicuity, power, perfection, canonicity, and authority of
Holy Writ. Scripture calls itself a light, a lamp, the sure testimony
of the Lord, making wise the simple, 2 Pet. 1: 19; Ps.119: 105; 19: 8.
It declares itself to be quick and powerful and sharper than any
two-edged sword, Heb. 4: 12. The apostle testifies that the Holy
Scriptures make one wise unto salvation and thorougrJy furnish
the man of God unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3:15-17. Scripture
lays a curse upon those who add or detract anything from it, Deut.
4: 2; Rev. 22: 18, 19. God through the prophet calls to those who
consult the dead: "To the Law and the Testimony! If they speak
not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them,"
Is. 8: 20. Christ causes Abraham to answer the petition of the rich
False Arguments for Modern Theory of Open Questions 589
man in hell with the words "They have Moses and the Prophets;
let them hear them. If they hear not Moses and the Prophets,
neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead,"
Luke 16: 29, 31. The apostle writes at the close of his doctrinal
discussion: "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace
be on them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God," Gal. 6: 16.
Scripture speaks of itself as the river of the city of God which is
full of water. Ps. 46: 4; 65: 9. - Against all these powerful divine
testimonies the theory according to which dogmas are built up
gradually through decisions of the Church rises in opposition.
It substitutes the Church for Scripture, man and his decision for
God and the divine decision. And this substitution surrenders the
foremost principle of true Protestantism and adopts the principle
of the antichristian Papacy, with all its errors and abominations, as
the foundation of our Church.
But thanks be to God! Our Church has definitely rejected that
theory thetically and antithetically both in its public Confessions
and in the private writings of its faithful servants.
Our Church, accordingly, begins her confession in the Formula
of Concord with the following words: "We believe, teach, and
confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all
dogmas together with (all) teachers should be estimated and
judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and
of the New Testament alone, as it is written, Ps.119: 105: 'Thy
Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.' And
St. Paul: 'Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel
unto you, let him be accursed,' Gal. 1: 8. Other writings, however,
of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must
not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures but all of them
together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise
or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner
after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this (pure) doc-
trine of the prophets and apostles was preserved." (Trigl., p. 777.)-
The Thorough Declaration calls Scripture "the pure, clear fountain
of Israel" (Trigl., p. 851). - In the Smalcald Articles the confession
of our Church reads as follows: "For it will not do to frame articles
of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers. . .. The
rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no
one else, not even an angel." (Trigl., p.467.) These pronounce-
ments of our Church openly and solemnly reject the theory that
in addition to Scripture the Church also is a source of Christian
dogmas, i. e., that certain doctrines are open questions as long as
the Church has not uttered her decisive voice, but become dogmas
binding upon heart and conscience when the Church has rendered
her decision. If this supposition and procedure were correct, then
590 False Arguments for Modern Theory of Open Questions
articles of faith would be established not only by the Word of God
but also by the Church.
In the following words Luther gives expression to the voice
of our Church on the right of establishing articles of faith through
councils or otherwise: "The Christian Church has no power to set
up any article of faith; she has never done so and will never at-
tempt it. All articles of faith are revealed in Holy Scripture,
making it unnecessary for man to add some supplements. The
Christian Church has no power to decree articles of faith like a
judge or a supreme authority; she has never yet done so and will
never attempt it." (Article on the Power of the Christian Church,
A. D. 1530, beginning with the following introductory sentence:
"Dr. M. Luther, pastor of the holy church in Wittenberg, is ready
to defend the following points against the whole satanic brood
and all the gates of hell," XIX: 958.) On the power of the Church
assembled in councils Luther furthermore wrote: "In the first
place, a church council has no power to set up new articles of
faith, in spite of the fact that the Holy Spirit is present in the
sessions. Even the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:11)
established no new article of faith; St. Peter merely pointed out
the fact that all their forefathers had also believed this same
article -- salvation alone through the grace of Christ without the
works of the Law. In the second place, a Church council has the
power and the duty to suppress and condemn new articles of faith
according to the will of God in Holy Writ and the example of the
faithful fathers." (Essay on Councils and Churches, A. D. 1539,
XVI: 2250.) All true servants of our Church follow Luther in
this judgment. Thus Baier, one of the later servants of our
Church, says: "It is manifest that the work of councils does not
consist in establishing new dogmas, but in expounding, confirming,
and defending the revealed dogmas in clear, idiomatic speech."
(Com. Th. Posit., III, 13, 31.)
Ancient councils, indeed, at times adopted the phraseology of
the Apostolic Council: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and
to us" (Acts 15: 28), but J. Dan. Arcularius has written correctly:
"Although the words 'The Holy Spirit has passed judgment in this
question,' etc., have been used repeatedly in many councils and
confessions of faith, yet our Church has never used these words,
neither in the Augsburg Confession nor in the Thorough Declara-
tion; she has always cited the words of Scripture, because they
are the foundation upon which her doctrine rests." (The Unbiased
Confession of Faith, etc., 1692, p.131 f.) Therefore Dannhauer,
who refers to Arcularius on this question, expressed himself in the
following manner: "Athanasius says: 'In the question concerning
the celebration of Easter the Nicene Fathers did not hesitate to
False Arguments for Modern Theory of Open Questions 591
add: "We have decided [visum est], that all ought to submit them-
selves"; but in regard to faith they did not write: "We have de-
cided"; but: "The Catholic Church believes.'" And therefore
the deciding authority of councils is not that of a judge but that of
a servant in points of faith which can be contradicted by a single
Paphnutius if he teaches something on the basis of Scripture which
is more correct." (Christeis. Froth., p.94.)
In like manner our Church has always consistently refused to
consider the demand that it should wait for the "decision" of a
council or of the Church before it accepts or rejects any point in
an article of faith. Therefore Luther wrote: "This is a strong
argument which disconcerts many. They know our doctrine is
right and are unable to advance anything against it. Yet they
stand before us like an old horse and say nothing more than:
'The holy Christian Church has not yet passed judgment upon it
and approved it.' With the words 'Christian Church' they arrest
the attention of both the simple-minded and the conceited. . . .
'How is this?' they say; 'the Christian Church has not yet passed
her decision; Christendom has not yet spoken'; and then they wait
for councils and diets, where the doctors assemble, deliberate, and
draw their conclusions. As long as this procedure is not followed,
they remain neutral. Now both the foolish and the 'wise' deter-
mine to wait until the Christian Church has come to some con-
clusion; for one man is speaking this way, another otherwise;
the Christian Church is still undecided; we want to continue in
the faith of our fathers until a conclusion is reached as to what
is right; and then they turn up their noses at the simple-minded.
We do not deny, for instance, that Jesus was to come out of
Bethlehem, but for that reason we do not say that He was not to
come out of Galilee, John 7:40-43. Furthermore, this also is true:
Whoever is not in the Christian Church and teaches doctrines not
acceptable to the Church is a false preacher through and through.
. . . But when they say they desire to wait until the Church has
uttered her voice, let the devil do the waiting; I shall not tarry
that long. For the Christian Church has already decided every-
thing. . .. This deciding is not accomplished through some out-
ward assembly. There is a spiritual council, and no convention
of men is necessary for that. We may hold a council to decide how
we should fast and pray, how we should clothe ourselves, how
articles of faith are correctly confirmed and confessed, or how other
questions should be judged, as was done in the Council of Nicaea.
But no council is necessary to decide whether the Christian doc-
trine is right. I say I accept Baptism and the Sacrament of the
Altar and believe that the Gospel is true and holy. Should some
one reply: Well, your faith is wrong, then trouble begins. There-
592 False Arguments for Modem Theory of Open Questions
fore a spiritual council is necessary that my brother may believe
as I believe and preach, that all Christians everywhere may have
the same faith and be united. . .. The Christian Church is not an
assemblage of bishops' and cardinals' hats. Such a concourse may
be or may grow into a council, but it is not the Christian Church.
For the Church cannot be gathered into one locality; she is scat-
tered throughout the whole world. She believes as I believe; and
I believe as she believes. There is nothing conflicting or dissimilar
in our belief. . .. Let this be your attitude: If you want to be
the true Church and bear her precious name, give this proper proof
thereof: teach doctrine correctly, as the holy Christian Church
teaches it; live as she lives; give evidence of your faith and the
fruit of faith; prove that you are the Christian Church." Luther
accordingly says that a doctrine does not become certain through
the decision of the Church; but when the Church passes a correct
decision, then it becomes certain that she is the true Church.
Christians indeed believe the Church as a ministering judge, but
only as a judge that examines and confirms, not as one that hands
down decrees by virtue of his office or authority. (On John 7:
40-44, VIII: 97 -102.)
The following words are also from Luther's pen: "A saying
is the Word of God not because it is proclaimed by the Church,
but because the Word of God is proclaimed, therefore there exists
the Church. The Church does not create the Wora, but is made
through the Word. The presence of the Word of God in any
locality is a sure sign of the existence of the Church in that place.
So St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 14: 24, 25: ... 'just as an unbeliever
prostrates himself and confesses that God is truly present because
he hears them prophesying.' Not the Church but the Word of God
has moved him, whereby he has been overcome and judged."
(On the Abuse of the Mass, A. D. 1521. XIX: 1081.) Again, in
regard to waiting for the decision of the Church Luther wrote as
follows: "Who in the mean time is preaching to the Christians,
while the schism is being adjusted and settled? Yes, it is easy to
juggle with councils and the Fathers when one fools around with
letters of the alphabet or constantly postpones a council, as has
been done for the past twenty years, and has no thought for the
souls that should be fed with reliable doctrine, as Christ says in
John 21:6: Pasce aves meas." (Article on Councils and Churches,
A. D. 1539, XVI: 2178.) Some indeed answer that the controverted
doctrines, or "at least those points which are most in dispute, had
better be excluded altogether from proclamation in the Christian
pulpit." What prudent advice! What, then, "happens to the souls
that one should feed with reliable doctrine?" Or has God perhaps
revealed unnecessary things? Indeed, is certainty on any point
False Arguments for Modern Theory of Open Questions 593
of faith an unnecessary thing when a controversy has arisen and
consciences are disturbed over those points? "Good consciences,"
says the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, "are crying out for
the truth and sound instruction from the Word of God; and for
them death is not so bitter as doubt in some point of faith." (Of
Confession and Satisfaction, Trigl., p.290, 32.) "But it is likely
that there are many in many places who waver concerning matters
of no light importance and yet do not hear such teachers as are
able to heal their consciences." (Trigl., p.291, 33.) God preserve
us from such a perpetual "interim" which some men would bring
upon our Church today through such principles!
Just one more testimony from our beloved Luther. In the
introduction to a sermon by Guettel, in 1541, he wrote as follows:
"Guettel is writing against the exspectantes, i. e., those who are
waiting for a council. They may be wise and prudent people who
thus wait and stake their salvation upon some human ordinance,
but they are fulfilling the proverb: A wise man will not commit
a small folly; or they must be entirely ignorant and inexperienced
concerning the Christian faith, not being able to discern the wide
difference between the Word of God and the word of man. I would,
however, not fault them for this, because up to the present time
the world, deceived by the Pope, was forced to believe that decrees
of councils were just as valid as, yes, even more valid than, the
Word of God, which (thank God) at the present time not even the
ducks and the geese, the mice and the lice, among us would believe
if it were possible for them to believe something. But he who does
not hear anything cannot learn anything, and he who cannot or
will not hear cannot or will not learn and know. Such exspectantes
we commend to the mercy of God." (XIV: 392.)
Dannhauer therefore classifies the practise of the Roman Cath-
olic Church as conservative syncretism because it permits freedom
in non decisis, i. e., freedom in points not yet decided by the
Church. Gerhard declares this practise to be skepticism. The
statement of the Jesuit Dillinger "Just as in the days of the most
ancient Fathers, so today in the interest of unity of faith and peace
differing opinions are permissible in those points of religion which
the Church has not yet defined as long as every one is ready to
submit himself to the judgment of the Church" is answered by
Gerhard as follows: "What absurdity! Since the Pope can establish
new articles of faith, the papists can never be certain about dogmas,
but must always remain skeptics. . .. According to Bellarmin's
admission the Church cannot make any book canonical, but only
declare it to be canonical. In like manner an opinion is heretical
even when no 'decision' has confirmed it. . .. The certainty of
dogmas does not depend on the judgment of the Church, but on
38
594 False Arguments for Modern Theory of Open Questions
the divine revelation in Holy Writ, a fact which Christ and the
apostles ever hold before our eyes. . .. The certainty of Holy Writ
disappears if its statements must first be confirmed by the decrees
of the Church. Then also all means of sound Bible interpretation
which have been employed with great success by the entire Church
are surrendered and cast overboard." (Consideratio Quarund.
Quaestt., etc. Jenae, 1631, p.1.)
It is indeed true that our Church, together with the Roman
Church, has always denied the validity of a private interpretation
of Scripture, but each Church in an entirely different sense. In the
Roman Church a private interpretation is that of an unofficial in-
dividual, and the correct interpretation is that which has been ap-
proved by the Church in her public decrees. But our Church con-
siders that interpretation private which, according to 2 Pet. 1: 20,
rests on human reason and biased points of view; for when the
apostle says "that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private
interpretation" (tIlLa<; EltLAUo"EW<; au YLVE'tUL; Vulgate: propria inter-
pretatione non fit), he does not mean to say that the official inter-
pretation of the Church is the correct one, but rather that an inter-
pretation is acceptable only then when it corresponds with the
intention of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the holy writers. There-
fore Kromayer wrote as follows: "We must give a more ready
ear to a plain layman when he adduces Scripture than to a whole
council which takes a stand contrary to Scripture. We must be
more ready to believe Mary, the eye-witness, than the deceitful
crowd of Jews. For the fact that a multitude of persons errs does
not make the error right. In Ex. 23: 2 God gave the command
"Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" (i. e., when it has
deviated from the straight path of truth). Hence, we must pay
more attention to the principle upon which a man bases his support
for a certain truth than to the person speaking and writing. Even
though a whole council expounded Scripture contrary to the in-
tention of one of the holy writers, we should look upon such an
exposition as a private interpretation, 2 Pet. 1: 20. Consequently,
mere private opinion which offers biased Bible interpretation is
rejected, not the exposition of a private individual who permits
Scripture to interpret itself. In the Nicene Council the contention
of one man, Bishop Paphnutius, prevailed, for he defended the right
of the clergy to marry, although the sentiment of the council had
been against it."
May God graciously prevent that modern theology, having
originated in our old fatherland, gain ground among us! Let us be
on our guard against it, because it makes the validity of a doctrine
as a Christian dogma depend on the decree of the Church. In doing
Stleine ~to\l£)ctenftubien 595
so, this theology has placed itself on the same level with the
Roman Catholic Church.
In our next article we shall refute the position of the Dorpat
theologians, who claim that "even the most well-founded Christian
conviction and current result of conscientious and faithful Bible-
study" cannot be considered "dogmas of the Church" before the
Church has given her authoritative voice. That this distinction
between Biblical and ecclesiastical dogmas is untenable will be
our topic next time.
Oak Glen, Ill. ALEX. W. C. GUEBERT, translator
(To be continued)
Stldnc ~r.o.pijetenft1thie1t
~n ben {etien attJei;safjrgiingen biefer 2eiifdjrif± finb fedj£l Heine
~ef efielf±ubien unb eoenf 0 biele Heine S\)anicIf±ubien erf djienen. s\)ie
2Uificfj± biefer burdj ben 9taUnt