arnurnr~ttt
mqrnlngital :tInut41y
ContinDiDa
LEHRE UNO ~EHRE
MAGAZIN PUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILBTlK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. X November, 1939 No. 11
CONTENTS
Page
The Roman Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. F. E. Mayer __________ 801
Kleine Prophetenstudien. L. Fuerbringer ____________________ 816
The False Arguments for the Modem Theory of Open Questions
Walther-Guebert ________________________ 827
Fighting Liberalism with Blunted Weapons. Th. Engelder _______ 834
Precligtentwuerfe fuer die Evangelien der Thomasius-
Perikopenreihe ______________________________________________________________________ M6
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches __________ 857
Book Review. - Literatur _______ ______________________________________________________ _ 873
lI:In Predtger mUll! nlcht aIleJn we!-
den. al80 daaa er dle Scbafe unter-
wel8e. wle 11.0 rechte Cbr1aten sollen
rein. SODdem. auch daneben den Woal-
fen wflhnm. daaa 11.0 die Sc:bafo nlcht
anarelfen und mit faIac:ber Lehre ver-
tuebreD und Irrtum eInfuebren.
Lvthef'.
Ea lit bin Dina. daa dlo x.ute
mohr bel der Itlrche behaelt deDD
die gute Pred1gt. - Apologte. An. 14.
U the trumpet live an uncer1a1n
sound who Iba1l prepare b1mIeIf to
*be battle? -1 Cor. 14.',
Published for the
BY. Lath. S7JUHI of MIssouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PUBLISHING BOUSE, st. Louis, Mo.
Theological Observer - ~ird)lid).8eitgefd)id)tlid)eiJ 857
Theological Observer - ~irdjndj • .8eitgefdjidjtIidje~
War.-"And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second
beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was
red; and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from
the earth and that they should kill one another; and there was given
unto him a great sword." Rev. 6: 3, 4. At the beginning of September
the frightful scourge of war with bewildering swiftness again fell upon
a large part of the world's inhabitants. The political and other merely
external aspects of the subject do not concern us here. Nor is it our
intention to write an editorial elaborating on the great truths that ought
to flash upon us from the Scriptures. Let us here simply remind our-
selves that the war proclaims in thunderous accents our sinfulness
and that of our fellow-men, that it is a punishment falling upon a wicked
world ripe for the Judgment, that it constitutes a call to repentance for
all who have ears to hear, that it announces the rapid approach of the
final catastrophe, the end of the world. With hearts that are constantly
beseeching God, on the one hand, to be merciful and soon to end the
conflict and, on the other, to lead men to heed the moral and spiritual
lessons taught by this dread affliction, and with feelings of love for all
that are engaged in the conflict, regardless of where our sympathies lie,
remembering that Jesus commands us to love our enemies and remem-
bering, furthermore, that Christians must avoid fostering sw..ful animosi-
ties and must be peacemakers, let us be about our great task, preaching
that real peace on earth which Jesus established through the shedding
of His holy blood. A.
Declarations Pertaining to Intersynodlcal Relations. - From the
report of the Northwestern Lutheran on the convention of the Wisconsin
Synod, we reprint the following paragraph:
"A great amount of time, in fact three full sessions, were devoted
to a most conscientious consideration and discussion of the request of
our sister Synod, the honorable Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and
Other States, to render an opinion on the resolutions of this body at
St. Louis in 1938, declaring 'that the Brief Statement of the Missouri
Synod, together with the "Declaration of the Representatives of the
American Lutheran Church" and the provisions of this entire report of
Committee No.16 now being read and with Synod's actions thereupon,
be regarded as the doctrinal basis for future church-fellowship between
the MiSSGuri Synod and the American Lutheran Ch'lLrch.' A communica-
tion addressed to the Missouri Synod was adopted by the convention.
This communication had the following content: In two preliminary
points the historical data of the entire development are set forth.
In a third the principles which ought to govern such a resolution as
that adopted at St. Louis are enunciated. And finally, in a fourth point,
the application is made to the present case, disavowing a real doctrinal
basis for church-fellowship as existing at St. Louis and desiring of our
sister synod that the implications of the Sandusky Resolutions and the
858 Theological Observer - Rird)ltd).,atUlltfd)id)tltd)t!
Pittsburgh Agreement be 'officially recognized and made known to those
within and without our Synodical Conference' to the end that 'confidence
will be restored to a point where negotiations can be resumed, first to
remove these obstacles and then to establish true doctrinal unity.'''
The Gemeindeblatt of the Wisconsin Synod published this report:
"QhfdJluffe bet aRisconfinil)nobe in beaug aUf bie
~ei±tebungen bet IDliffoutifl)nobe, Eeljteinigfeit mit
bet A. L. C. lj eta u ft e Ire n. mid 2eit IDUtbe bei bet biesiiiljtigen
~agung auf bie ~efptedJung bet met ei n bat u n g 3 ID if dJ e n bet
IDliffoutifl)nobe unb bet ~metifanifdJ-EutljetifdJen
~ i t dJ e (A. L. C.) betlDenbet. Unb mit medJt. Unfete @5l)nobe ift es iljtet
@5dJlDeitetfl)nobe bon IDliifouri, bie iljt biefe @5adJe bOtgeIegt ljaite, ift es audJ
bet ~metifanifdJ-EutljetifdJen ~itdJe idJulbig, eine flare unb unalDeibeutige
@5tellung in biefet meteinigungsbelDegung einauneljmen. ~ies iit oljne
2IDeifeI bie lDidJtigfte ~ngelegenljeit, bie unf ete biesiiiljtige @5l)nobalbet-
iammlung au beiptedJen unb au entfdJeiben ljatte. aRit Iafien bie engIiidJ
betabfaflten ~ e f dJ r u f f e ljiet folgen, bie einftimmig angenommen lDutben.
,,1. aRit biIIigen ben @5tanbpunfi unfets ~omitees, ben es in ieinem
UdeiI unb ~efunb nadJ ~eiI III feines ~etidjts anfiinbigt.
"Ci!5in befteljenbes ~omitee in @5adJen bet meteinigungsbef±teliungen
unter ben Iutljetifdjen S¥irdjenfiirpern ljat fei ZSuH 1938 im ~uftrage bes
!lSriifes gearlieitet. ~us feinem ~eridJt naljm bie @5l)nobe ~eiI III an, bet
alfo Tautet: ~uf &runb feiner ~eobadJtungen, ~eratungen unb gje-
fpredJungen ift bas ~omitee bet ~nfidJt, ban bie EeljrgrunbIage, bie alDifdJen
ber IDliffourifl)nobe unb bet ~merifanifdj-2utljerifdJen .I'l!irdJe ljergefterrt iit,
nidJt anneljmbar, iit, befonbers nidJt im 4linbIid auf ben morlieljart ber
~merifanifdj-2utljerifdJen S¥irdJe, ban bie ,.I'l!urae ~atIegung' ber 2eljre ber
IDliffourifl)nobe im 2idJte bet ,Ci!5tfliirung' ber ~merifanifdJ-EutljerifdJen
.I'l!irdJe betradJtet lDetben mUffe. Ci!5s forrten nidJt alDei ~atftellungen ali8
~afis ber ftbeteinftimmung ljeraui8gegeben lDerben. mieImeljr ift eine ein-
aige gemeinfam abgegebene Ci!5tfliirung unetIiinIidJ, bie bie ftrittigen 2eljten
tljetifdJ unb antitljetifdJ (alfo in ~atIegung bet tedJten 2eljte unb in met-
lDerfung ber faIfdJen 2eljte) bedt. aReHer mun foldJe 2eljrbarftellung in
fIaren unb unalDeibeutigen ~usbtiiden gemadJt lDerben, bie nid)t fellift
lDieber muljfamer Ci!5dliirung beburfen. ~ie ~uftidJtigfeit einet tljeotetifdJ
ridJtigen 2eljrbatIegung mun audJ burdJ entfptedJenbe ~nlDenbung in ber
firdJIidJen !lSra~is belDiefen lDetben.
,,2. aRir ljarten bafiir:
"A. bafl bie @5anbusfl)-~efdJmfie unb bie !lSiitsburglj-mereinbarung et-
lDiefen ljaben, ban feine lDitfIidJe 2eljtbafis aur ~uftidJtung ber .I'l!irdJen-
gemeinfdjaft illDifdJen ber eljrlDutbigen @5l)nobe bon IDliifouti unb ber ~me
tifanifdJ-2utljerifdJen .I'l!itdje borljanben lDar;
"B. ban lDeitete merljanbIungen i\Ut 4lerf±elIung bon ~itdJengemeinfdJaft
un±et ben gegenlDiirtigen merljiiltnifien eine metIeugnung ber aRaljrljeit in
fidj fdjIienen unb merlDirrung unb @5tiirungen in ber .I'l!itdJe berurfadjen
lDurben unb barum bis aUf lDeiteres eingefterrt lDerben forrten;
"C. ban, lDenn aUf biefe aReife offiaiell anedannt unb allen innerljaIfi
unb aunerljalb unfetet @5l)nobaHonfetena befannt gemad)t lDorben ift, lDas
bie @5anbusfl)-~efdjmfie unb bie !lSiitsburglj-mereinbatung in fidJ fdJIienen,
Theological Observer - .Rird){id)~2eitgefd)id)md)e~ 859
ttJie unter A unb B erttJiiqnt, ba£l !Bedrauen vi£l ilU bem @tabe ttJieber~
qergefteIIt fein ttJirb, bat !Berqanbrungen ttJieber aUfgenommen ttJerben
fOnnen, um erft bie vcf±eqenben t)inbemiffe ilU vefeitigen unb bann dne
ttJaqre @'Jinigreit in ber Eeqre qetiluftellen.
,,3. )JEir emlJfeqlen:
"A. bat unf ere )JEi£lconfinf~nobe ein €ldjrdven an hie eqrttJlithige IDCif ~
fourif~nobe ricf)te, in bem fie iqr bon unferer €l±eIIung IDCitteUung macf)tj
"B. bat bet \)Sriife£l ber €l~nobe ein .\'{omitee, au bem er ferver geqoten
foil, emenne, beffen \)Sf{icf)t e£l fein foil, aIle nur au etlangenbe ~nfotmation
liver bie gegenttJiiriigen !Bereinigung£lveftrevungen innerqaIb ber Iutqerifcf)en
~itdje forgfiHtig au fammeIn unb tiver hie @:ntttJicflungen biefer mettJegun~
£len an bie ~nrgemeine €l~nobe obet bie berfdjiebenen SDiftrifte, toenn fo
gettJiinfcf)±, au vetidjten."
The Lutheran Sentinel, the paper of our Norwegian brethren, reports
this item in its account of the convention of the Norwegian Synod:
"This resolution was adopted unanimously: 'Resolved that the Synod
hereby endorses the letter to Dr. J. W. Behnken, drawn up by the com-
mittee appointed by the president to study the union movement between
the American Lutheran Church and the Missouri Synod.' In the dis-
cussion it was pointed out that the so-called agreement that has been
reached is not sufficiently clear and definite to exclude error. That
there are wide open doors to contrary teachings was clearly demon-
strated. The convention discussions on this point were marked by an
outspoken 'on the record' attitude; and equally clear was the concern
for the truth which must mark the brotherhood of those who are united
in a common confession. The whole convention, on the floor and in
the halls, was noted for a definite tone of deep concern for the main-
tenance of our common faith with those of the Synodical Conference
who have stood side by side with us in the past for Scriptural doctrine,
faith, and life."
In the Australian Theological Review, Prof.H.Haman published the
following article:
"The Lutheran Union Movement. Naturally enough, Lutheran
church-papers in Australia and in America devote more than a little
space to the progress of the negotiations between the American Lutheran
Church and the Missouri Synod, which negotiations have now been
extended to the bodies with which these churches are affiliated and
in communion. Besides, writing and printing on this topic are by no
means restricted to the regular synodical organs. Whether any real
progress has been made during the past year, as far as the rank and
file of the ministers (and of the laymen) within the respective bodies
are concerned, we are unable to say. In Australia nothing has been
done, with the exception of a preliminary exchange of official letters;
but there seems to be an earnest and urgent desire on both sides to
get the discussions under way at last. In America conferences have been
held by pastors belonging to the various synods joined in the Synodical
Conference, and also by pastors of the two bodies which are now striving
to bring about church-fellowship; the results are described as satis-
factory. But unexpected obstacles have loomed up, and unexpected
860 Theological Observer - .reitd)lid»8eUgejd)id)tHd)es
opposition has been encountered. Still, were they unexpected? Men
do not think and feel alike. Quot homines, tot sententiae. Even Chris-
tians linked by the bonds of a common faith may argue and debate the
question: If a breach in the Church, a breach of many years' standing,
is to be healed, what is the irreducible minimum that must be insisted
on in the way of retraction, confession, guarantees? That there are
divergent views on this point is not strange at all; the opposite would
be astounding indeed. But discussion may help to clarify opinions,
to harmonize differing views. One hesitates, at this distance, to add
one's voice to the many already raised. Yet a few observations may not
come amiss.
"Since the momentous action taken by the Mi$souri Synod at St. Louis
(1938) things have not run altogether smoothly. It is not our intention
to deal with statements emanating from the other side; though we may
say in passing that the refusal to 'sign on the dotted line,' now almost
historic, of which so much has been made, originally occurred in a letter
(private?) to a pastor of the Missouri Synod who had asked for certain
information. Of course, private or not, that letter is by this time public
property, and we believe that its contents have been dealt with
adequately by Dr. W. Arndt in the CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY,
May, 1939 (p. 387 ff.). We are now concerned with such criticism of
the action taken by the Missouri Synod, and of its Committee on Lutheran
Union, as has been published in our own circles, both officially and
non-officially. Fears are expressed whether church-fellowship, if
brought into being, would be based on true doctrinal unity; whether the
doctrinal basis accepted by the two bodies is a sufficient and adequate
one; whether the American Lutheran Church has really, by its Declara-
tion, accepted the Brief Statement of the Missouri Synod; whether the
Declaration is slli'TIcient guarantee that certain errors formerly taught
by the synods now united in the American Lutheran Church have
actually been retracted; whether the efforts now being made to bring
about a rapprochement between the A. L. C. and the United Lutheran
Church would not inevitably involve the Missouri Synod in fellowship
with the last-named body; etc.
"We do not doubt that these and other apprehensions proceed from
hearts that love and desire the truth. We should not dream of denying
to conscientious doubters and objectors the right to express their
opmlOn. In a matter of such vast importance, where, as one writer
correctly points out, the congregations with their pastors must in the
last instance decide, free discussion and criticism is a desideratum,
a necessity. It is quite in order when dangers, obstacles, stumbling-
blocks, oversights, are pointed out, or what seem to be such; people
have a right to urge caution. Still, Sit modus in rebus. We for our
person do not share the opinion of those who regard the doctrinal
basis accepted by the Missouri Synod as insufficient. We do not share
the fears of those who say that 'The American Lutheran Church
wishes the Brief Statement to be viewed in the light of the Declara-
tUm,' according to a resolution adopted at its convention at San-
dusky, 0.; therefore, in the last analysis, the Declaration will be
everything and the Brief Statement nothing. The fifth resolution
Theological Observer - Ritd}Iid)=3eitgcfdjhf}tlidjes 861
adopted at Sandusky begins with the words: 'That we believe that
the Brief Statement viewed in the light of our Declaration is not in
contradiction to the Minneapolis Theses, which are the basis of our
membership in the American Lutheran Conference.' But that, if we
understand English, is not the same as saying that 'the American
Lutheran Church wishes the Brief Statement to be viewed in the light
of the Declaration,' with the implication that the Declaration is norma
normans and the Brief Statement is relegated to the position of norma
normata. Again, since there are now two doctrinal statements adopted
by the negotiating bodies, the fear is voiced that in case of differences
each body will appeal to its own and reject the other; and hence the
demand is raised that there should be but one doctrinal statement equally
subscribed to by both parties. We cannot regard this demand as
unreasonable, but neither do we regard it as necessary. However, since
we have here not two political parties trying to agree on an innocuous
formula and haggling over words and phrases to enable each to save
its face, but two church-bodies which, in the fear of God and in the
love of His Church and with regard to the welfare of souls, are trying
to reach unity of faith and to confess a common faith, we can well
imagine such a thing as these two bodies complying with the request or
demand just mentioned, if it be urged by many, in the spirit of love
and brotherliness. Or again, what is asked for is a confession, in thetical
and antithetical form, covering all controversial pOi11.ts that have made
a rift between the church-bodies in the past. Even though one granted
the desirability of having such a confession, one would still have to face
the question: Where shall we begin and where shall we end? Is it
really necessary, and is it charitable, needlessly to exacerbate the
feelings of the present generation by demanding that it disavow errors
from which it feels and knows itself free, because its fathers or grand-
fathers once maintained these errors? Certainly a confessing Church
is bound to reject error as well as ·to uphold the truth of God's revela-
tion; but just as certainly Christian charity and practical Christian
wisdom will have to play their part in determining the procedure to
be adopted, or the language to be used, when two churches record the
fact that, after long and carefully examining and discussing teachings
that divided them, they have at last attained to unity on the basis of
the Word of God. Matters are not helped when people, dissatisfied with
the way in which things were done, propound a carefully excogitated
scheme and attempt to communicate to others their own conviction that
this scheme is the only one which has the sanction of the divine Word.
"Two matters in particular we must strongly deprecate and deplore.
In their well-meaning but misdirected zeal, certain writers have
expressed distrust of the Committee on Lutheran Union and distrust
of the bona fides of those with whom fellowship is sought, even while
strenuously and no doubt quite sincerely disclaiming any such intention.
The Committee on Lutheran Union has been at work for years; the
result of its labors were placed before the St. Louis convention in
a number of resolutions by Committee No. 16; and as far as we can
gather, the Missouri Synod has through that convention pronounced
upon these recommendations in no uncertain voice. Pastors of both
862
bodies are encouraged, by resolution, to meet in smaller circles to
discuss the doctrinal basis and questions of church practise; the Com-
mittee on Lutheran Union is to continue its work. The Missouri Synod
went on record that agreement in practise is needed for true unity,
referring specifically to 'the antichristian lodge and anti-Scriptural
pulpit- and altar-fellowship and all other forms of unionism'; besides,
it resolved that 'the establishing of church-fellowship between the
American Lutheran Church and the Missouri Synod will depend also
on the establishing on the part of the American Lutheran Church of
doctrinal agreement with those church-bodies with which the American
Lutheran Church is in fellowship.' In other words, the Missouri Synod
recognized that un-Lutheran practise and synodical affiliations might
prove to be the rocks on which the consummation of church-fellowship
may come to grief. All this was published long ago; everybody in the
Missouri Synod is, or can be, aware of it. Just why, then, should any
one doubt that the Committee on Lutheran Union, the officials of the
Missouri Synod, or the editors of its church-papers will in the future
display the same circumspection and conscientiousness and the same
devotion to confessional principles which they have displayed in the
past? It seems to me that these men are as well aware of all the
relevant facts and factors as their critics. If there should be on the part
of the A.merican Lutheran Church and the synods affiliated with it an
unwillingness to renounce un-Lutheran practise and to forsake unionistic
associations, or even an inclination to enter into union with others whose
doctrinal and practical unsoundness has long been a grief to sound
confessional Lutheranism, then the whole matter will be off, to put it
bluntly. Of this we have no doubt. Or should the partners of the
Missouri Synod in the Synodical Conference decline, for reasons of
conscience, to give their approval to the doctrinal basis and the estab-
lishing of church-fellowship with the American Lutheran Church, the
Missouri Synod will with Christian charity and patience hold the matter
in abeyance until apprehensions are removed and legitimate wishes met.
Of this, too, we have no doubt. As regards the American Lutheran
Church, Christian love and common decency demand that its Declaration
be taken at its face value and that no doubt should be expressed or
entertained regarding the sincerity of the men who dealt with the com-
mittee of the Missouri Synod. It is not ethical to suspect trickery and
subterfuge; nor can such suspicions be justified by quoting incidents
from sixteenth-century church history. It is true, the American
Lutheran Church declared at Sandusky: 'We are not willing to give up
membership in the American Lutheran Conference.' But that body
also resolved: 'Weare ready to submit the aforementioned doctrinal
agreement to the other members of the American Lutheran Conference
for their official approval and acceptance.' So matters stand. We can
only wait and see and meanwhile hope and pray. The door is still
open; let no one rush forward to close it prematurely.
"The other matter which we must not simply deplore, but censure
in the spirit of meekness, is the intemperate language resorted to by
some of the friends from our own side. Nothing is quite so contagious
or infectious as the feeling of panic. Those writers who pour out in
printer's ink their doubts and fears, their anxieties and apprehensions;
who in their mind's eye already see the Missouri Synod fallen from
its high estate of strict confessionalism and entangled in unsanctified
alliances with unionists and errorists - these are not rendering their
Church or other churches a service, to say the least. Is it right to
unsettle and unhinge the minds of readers by filling them with a vague
dread of dangers which are certainly always present among sinful men
in a sinful world, but to which the officials and committees of the
Missouri Synod mainly charged with conducting the negotiations are
extremely unlikely to succumb? Sorrowfully, not cynically, we record
our conviction that about one half of what we have read on the move-
ment ought never to have been written. One writer explains why our
committee was 'so easily deceived'; another opines that, unless the
American Lutheran Church now takes the action expected of it, 'our
colloquents and the St. Louis faculty have suffered themselves to be
deceived.' In an editorial comment we read: 'Meanwhile some Lu-
theran leaders are driving with the throttle wide open, full speed
ahead, toward a union overriding all obstacles. . .. Just what the
driving motive is behind all this speed for union [Sic! After negotiations
and discussions extending over decades. - H. H.] this present writer has
not been able to ascertain.' Later the same article speaks of a mad
scramble for unionism and asks whether Missouri will soon find itself
in a combined Church 'embracing all Christendom, Protestants, and
Catholics, not forgetting the Jews.' The notion may be ridiculous, he
admits; 'but with the craze for unionism all things are possible.'
Evidently some of us are slipping into the language of propaganda with
its 'weasel words,' and some are becoming slightly hysterical. At times
the situation is not without its touch of humor. Thus one of our friends
reiterates that, before Missouri can enter into fellowship with any
church-body, there must be some guarantee that there will be in that
body doctrinal discipline, doctrinal control, Lehrzucht. Most truly
spoken, and we very heartily agree; but why should the gentleman
assume that those whom he admonishes are not sufficiently alive to this
necessity?
"What amuses the present writer is this, that exactly the same point
was stressed by a representative of the American Lutheran Church
when discussing a statement made by members of the U. L. C. on the
inerrancy of the Scriptures. He said, according to the CONCORDIA THEO-
LOGICAL MONTHLY, June, 1939, p.458: 'Ohne Lehrdisziplin kann keine
Kirche auf die Dauer gesund bleiben.' This saying is attributed by
the C. T. M. to M. R, which we suppose to stand for Dr. M. Reu.
"And why all this? Not only because it interests us and concerns
us as Lutherans in fellowship with the Missouri Synod, but also because
it may teach us something for the time when discussions begin here i.."1
Australia, which, we hope will be soon. That the Missouri Synod is
yielding never a whit to unionism and indifferentism must be plain as
daylight to all who read the Lutheran Witness and the CONCORDIA
THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY with care. Every new development is promptly
published, moreover, and may be read by all and sundry. We have
seen no trace of a desire to hide or hush up any matter. So let us, while
864 Theological Observer - ~ircl)Hcl)~8eitgeicl)icl)tlicl)es
adhering strictly to the Scriptures and our Lutheran Confessions, strive
to keep sober sense and judgment, to remain scrupulously fair, and to
speak the truth in love. The movement spoken of is still fraught with
promise, as far as we know now. It is worth praying and working for.
We have no patience with those who hint that it proceeded from mere
megalomania and the desire to impress the world with large numbers.
The issue cuts much deeper than that. There is, first of all, God's will
and command, Eph. 4: 3. There is the need of the world in an age of
apostasy. There is the scandal and offense of a divided Christendom and
a divided Lutheranism. Australian Lutherans feel uncomfortable when
they see, in many a tiny settlement, a church of the U. E. L. C. A. on one
.side of the road, and a church of the E. L. S. A. on the other; they
know what heartburnings, what misery and wretchedness, are caused
in many a family by this state of affairs. There is the foreign mission-
field. We wish that we could send all those armchair critics who speak
slightingly of the present movement into the foreign field for a term,
so that they might see with their own eyes the shock of pained surprise
in converts who learn that there are many Christian churches and that
there are various Lutheran bodies not in communion with each other.
Do we, then, advocate unionistic fellowship? Not for one moment.
All these things, unbearable though they sometimes seem, must be borne
for the truth's sake and for conscience' sake. We can do nothing against
the truth and nothing against conscience. But we can work for a God-
pleasing Lutheran union, in particular when the opportunity arises.
It is good to say, The consummation will come in God's own time,
when thereby we mean that only His Spirit and His blessing can bring
it about. It is not good to speak thus, however, when this pious senti-
ment is made the excuse for doing nothing. Ora et labora! We pray for
daily bread, and that implies that we work for our daily bread. Our
prayer for peace puts on us the obligation to work for peace. Prayer
for Lutheran unity can hardly be earnest and sincere if we are not
willing to make efforts to attain it. Our prayer is: May God in His
mercy and truth so direct the hearts of men that in the unity of the
true faith and in sincere confession of His holy Word they may reach
that Lutheran fellowship toward which they are striving." A.
Concerning Church-Fellowship Discussions in Australia. - With re-
spect to discussions on the establishment of church-fellowship between
them and the United Ev. Luth. Church of Australia our brethren in
Australia published the following paragraphs in the Australian Lutheran:
The Lutheran Herald (U. E. L. C. A.) of March 27, 1939, contains
"A Paper for the District Synods of the U. E. L. C. A.," "An Open Letter
to the E. L. S. A.," written by the President of the U. E. L. C. A., and in-
viting reply.
We reply: The "Open Letter" puts the clock back to zero, inasmuch
as it is guilty of, proclaims, and defends, a basic error, an unscriptural
twofold principle of Scripture interpretation, which is the root evil of
all doctrinal dissension and which, consequently, leads to further doc-
trinal error.
1. Christ, the apostles, and prophets attest that Holy Scripture, or the
written Word of God, is the only source and standard of doctrine and
rule of faith and life, or the true and only principium cognoscendi
(Schriftprinzip), principle of knowledge.
Jesus: "It is written," Matt. 4: 4; "The Scripture cannot be broken,"
John 10: 35.
2. The Reformation fathers recognized only one principle of knowl-
edge and interpretation, and would have Scripture alone posit, decree,
or determine doctrine as to fact and quality.
Luther: "The Church has no authority to establish (create or decree)
an article of faith; this she has never done and never willo"
Quenstedt: "Divine revelation is the first and last source of sacred
theology, beyond which theological discussion among Christians dare
not proceed."
Confessions: "The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles
of faith, and no one else, not even an angelo" (Trigl., p. 467, § 15.)
"We believe, teach, and confess that the sale 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." (Trigl., p. 777, § 1; cpo p.8S1, § 1.)
3. We deny that the Reformation principle "consists of the two
principles: the Scripture alone, faith alone, not one without the other,
but both together, not one more stressed than the other, but both stressed
alike as of equal value," that is, Scripture and faith coordinated lli'"ld
regarded as having equal value =d power in the positing, testing, and
interpretation of doctrine as to fact and quality.
4. We deny that "the only right way of explaining the Scripture is
that which applies both principles of the Reformation, the Scripture
alone, faith alone, equally and both as of equal importance."
Neither the Scriptures nor the Reformation fathers coordinate faith
with the Scriptures, nor do they permit faith to be the cojudge of the
fact and quality of doctrine.
5. We hold that the doctrine of justification by grace, through faith,
is the central doctrine of saving truth and the touchstone and standard
according to which man's subjective, personal faith is to be tested and
judged and his interpretation or understanding of any doctrine is to be
examined to ascertain whether or not both agree with the Gospel of grace.
6. The subjective, personal faith of a man, whether theologian or
not, cannot be the source, standard, and cojudge of doctrine, inasmuch
as Scripture alone in its doctrine of justification is the source and object
of saving faith.
7. The Reformation principle grace only signifies that God's favor
is bestowed freely on the sinner for Christ's sake.
8. The Reformation principle faith only signifies the means whereby
the grace, or favor, of God becomes the sinner's own, to the total exclu-
sion of man's efforts and works.
St. Paul: "For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of
yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should
boast," Eph. 2: 8, 9.
9. Scripture alone is the source of faith. "Faith cometh by hearing,
and hearing by the Word of God," Rom. 10: 17.
10. Scripture is the object of faith; it precedes, reveals, determines,
55
866 Theological Observer - .!tttd)licfh;leitgefd)td)tHd)e~
demands; faith follows, receives, and assents without question to, every
doctrine posited by Scripture; it apprehends God's Word and promise,
God's mercy and forgiveness of sins, and Christ as the Redeemer and
Mediator; it is effected, or wrought, guided and ruled, by the Word;
it is a witness and gives testimony to the doctrines posited by Scripture.
11. The introduction of faith as a cojudge of doctrine is to elevate
the "blissful experience of the living Christ," "pious self-consciousness,"
"Christian experience," "enlightened reason," and the "Wlanimous con-
sent" of theologians or the Church to a position of authority over the
Scriptures.
12. The introduction of faith as a coordinate principle with Scripture
in determining the fact and quality of doctrL'le is to coordinate the effect
with the cause. This is both unscriptural and illogical.
13. The interpretation of Scripture operating with Scripture as "one
organic whole," general scope of Scripture, entirety of Scripture, "das
Schriftganze:' allied with the subjective faith of the theologian as a
cojudge of doctrine, sets aside the sedes doctrinae, the clear Scripture-
passages which treat of the particular doctrines, and destroys all cer-
tainty of doctrine.
Kliefoth (German theologian) terms the phrase "organic whole of
Scripture," "das Schrijtganze:' "eine unvollziehbare Phrase," an unwork-
able and useless proposition.
14. The doctrineS of Scripture are derived from the proof-passages
(sedes doctrinae), that is, from the clear and unmistakable passages in
which the particular doctrines are set forth, and not frOIT' the "pntirety
of Scripture" or the "general scope of Scripture" or the "organic whole
of Scripture" (vom "Schriftganzen").
The reading of a book to have its "organic whole" make a general
impression on the mind is of little or no value, inasmuch as the result
must be confusion; but concentration on the particular statements and
doctrines brings clarity.
15. Doctrinal differences cannot be removed and unity attained by
permitting the "one organic whole" of Scripture, together with subjec-
tive faith, to have its general effect, or make a general impression, on
the mind and imagination of the theologian, but by determining the con-
troversial point (status controversiae) and then placing it in the light of
all clear Scripture-passages that treat of the particular doctrine or point
in question.
16. The distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental doc-
trines has not the purpose of showing what doctrines may be dispensed
from faith, inasmuch as all truths of Scripture are facts of doctrine and
articles of faith, even if not of saving faith.
17. Fundamental doctrines are all those doctrines that a man must
know and believe in order to be saved.
18. Non-fundamental doctrines are all those doctrines of which a
man may be ignorant and yet have saving faith.
19. Non-fundamental doctrines, truths of Scripture, are neither open
questions nor problems, inasmuch as Scripture does not leave them
open to question nor declare them to be problems which are to be
solved by the keen and inquiring mind of the theologian.
Theological Observer - ~ird)lid)'3eit(lefd)id)t1id)e5 867
20. Unity cannot be attained by evading or forsaking the sedes
doctrinae, the clear and unmistakable passages of Scripture which set
forth the particular doctrines; by coordinating Scripture and faith in
the positing of doctrine as to fact and quality; by viewing the Scripture,
and operating with it, as "one organic whole"; by avoiding the discus-
sion of the individual doctrines in dispute as of "minor importance,"
open questions, problems, and agreeing to disagree.
21. Unity cannot be brought about easily or be said to exist because
all are Lutherans holding to Scripture and Confessions, sing the same
hymns, use the same Catechism, take the same ordination vow, are
Australian Lutherans, and have in common a truly Australian sentiment
and outlook, inasmuch as Scripture doctrine is intended for all nations,
and Scripture is not concerned with the ancestry, sentiment, outlook,
and nationality of any man.
22. Unity can be attained only when pastors and congregations face
the fact that serious doctrinal differences do still exist, and are willing
and ready to discuss the basic principle of the interpretation of Scripture
and the differences in the individual doctrines that separate them, to the
exclusion of all unionism, before unity is attained.
23. We agree that the difference is not only "vital," but hold also
that it is divisive of church-fellowship; and therefore we ask for the
early resumption of doctrinal discussions on the individual points of
difference, both of the "main," or "fundamental," and the "minor," or
"non-fundamental," doctrines, that unity may be established.
24. We hold that friendly doctrinal discussions are possible; and
we are not minded to enter into or countenance mutual recriminations
:in regard to past history, inasmuch as we are convinced that they will
hold up, and may easily result in preventing, doctrinal discussions
altogether. Complaints regarding past history may receive attention, if
necessary, at a later stage or when unity in doctrine has been established.
25. It will be necessary, should the intersynodical committees agree
in doctrine, that all pastors, conferences, committees, parishes, and con-
gregations of both bodies signify agreement, act accordingly, and deal
with those who obdurately oppose themselves to the truth.
26. Confessions: "From this our explanation, friends and enemies, and
therefore everyone, may clearly infer that we have no intention of
yielding aught of the eternal immutable truth of God for the sake of
temporal peace, tranquillity, and unity (which, moreover, is not in our
power to do). Nor would such peace and unity, since it is devised
against the truth and for its suppression, have any permanency. Still
less are we inclined to adorn and conceal a corruption of the pure
doctrine and manifest, condemned errors.
"But we entertain heartfelt pleasure and love for, and are on our
part sincerely inclined and anxious to advance, thai unity to our utmost
power, by which His glory remains to God uninjured, nothing of the
divine truth of the Gospel is surrendered, no room is given to the least
error, poor sinners are brought to true, genuine repentance, raised up
by faith, confirmed in new obedience, and thus justified and eternally
saved alone through the sole merit of Christ." (Trigl., p. 1095, § 95.)
K.
868 Theological Observer - .Ritd){id)~8eitgefd)id)tHd)e~
U. L. C. A. Leaders and the Pittsburgh Agreement. - In the July,
1939, issue of the Lutheran Church Quarterly (U. L. C. A.) the widely
held view that through the Pittsburgh Agreement the commission of
the U. L. C. A. for closer relations with other Lutheran bodies accepted
the position of the A. L. C. and of the Missouri Synod toward the Holy
Scriptures, is shattered. This number of the Lutheran Church Quarterly
makes it evident that in certain influential sections of the U. L. C. A.
there is no intention to accept the doctrine of the verbal inspiration and
the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Dr. H. Offermann, a member of the
U. L. C. A. commission, in explaining why this commission drafted a dec-
laration on the Word of God and the Scriptures to be presented to the
Baltimore convention, states that the U. L. C. A. commission found the
Missouri Synod position as outlined in the Brief Statement unacceptable,
and he does not say that now, since the Pittsburgh Agreement has been
adopted, the commission has changed its view. In addition, Prof. F.
Nolde, of Mount Airy seminary, a colleague of Dr. Offermann, joining
him in a symposium on the Baltimore Declaration, boldly sponsors de-
structive views of higher criticism. Speaking of the significance of the
Baltimore Declaration for the educational program of the Church, he
seeks to show, taking Gen. 1 as an object-lesson, how the narratives of
the Holy Scriptures may be taught if one is guided by the Baltimore
Declaration. Unblushingly he says: "Pupils may later discard the
scientific import of the story." Concerning the child's reaction he says
that it should be "not so much to specific and detailed facts but to the
following values: a) God is the Creator, and the story in Genesis tells
how people explained the way in which God had created the world."
Besides he sponsors the oft-exploded view that in Gen. 1 and 2 we have
two creation accounts. No wonder that Dr. Reu, drawing attention to
some of these things in the Kirchliche Zeitschrift for September, de-
clares: "Wie kann man hoffen, dass unsere Pittsburgh-Erklaerung in
unserem Sinn von den Vereinigten Lutherischen Kirchen angenommen
wird, wenn Lehrer dieser Kirche schon die Baltimore-Deklaration be-
handeln, wie es hier geschieht?" A.
D. meu iilicr ttutoni{lmn{l. ,;sn ber "Si'ircljficljen 3eitfcljrift" bom ,;suni
Mefes ~aljres qat ,£;>ett D. WC. ffieu einen langeren ~uffat liber Unionismus
beroffentriclj±, ber treffHclje ~u£;fUljtungen liber biefe£; roicljtige :njema ent-
ljart. ~er ~uffat roar urfprlingHclj aI£i gsortrag fUr bie interftjnobale fteie
Sl'onferena, bie am 8. WCai in [ebar ffiapiM tagte, gefcljrieben unb tlJUrbe
boti an jenem ~atum betIefen. ~er gsotirag rourbe roieberljort auf ber
fteien Sl'onferena au ffiocljeITe, ,;sIT., am 28. ~uguft, unb aUf ber aroeiten fteien
Si'onferena au [ebar ffiapiM, bie am 18. @5epiember ftattfanb, rourbe er be£;
langeren befprocljen. )fiir unterbrei±en ljier befonber£; roicljtige ~bfcljnitte,
mit einigen memerrungen unfererfeit£;.
"WCeIancljtljon qat, roenn nicljt aITe£; taufcljt, fUr feine ffSerfon bie @egen-
roati be£; 2eibe£; unb mIute£; [ljrifti im ~benbmaljl bi£; an fein 2eben£;enbe
feftgeljarten, trotbem baB er bereH roar, mit [albin in e i n e r Si'irclje 3U-
fammenaugeljen. ~a£; ift beim Unioni£;mu£; ljaufig ber ffaU. Unb gerabe
bie£;, baB man beim @:ingeljen einer Union boclj feine eigene ftberaeugung
nicljt auf3ugeben .oraucljt, fonbern broB neben Mefer einer anbern ffiaum ge-
Theological Observer - Rttd)Hd)'3eitllefd)id)tIid)e~ 869
Ivii~ren mut, roirb gerne ali3 ~ittef gebrauclj±, um foruo~r fein eigenei3 roie
bai3 @eruiffen anberer au ltiIIen. ~an etfennt babd ein ~oppertei3 niclj±:
1. bat man bamit, bat man ber entgegenfte~enben ~cinung aui3btiicfIidj
ffiaum gilit unb iqr ~erecljtigung augefteq±, entrueber ber @5djrift bie mar<
ijeit unb (;inbeutigfeit abfpriclj± ober bem ~tttum neb en ber jIBaqrqeit
~6if±enarecljt augefteqt ober gegen bas, ruai3 eigentriclj biblifclje jIBaqrqeit ift,
ruenigfteni3 infofern gleicljgiHtig ift, bat man auf iqrer abfolu±en @iiHigfeit
nidj± meqr befteqtj 2. etfennt man nidjt, ban man mit bem Bugef±iinbnii3 bei3
ffiedj±ei3 bon aroeierfd ~einung in einem 2eqrftiicf cine fdjiefe ~bene lie<
±reten qat, bie notruenbig immer tiefer aieq± unb au bofttinelIer @Ieiclj<
giHtigfeit iilierqaupt fliqr±, ruie roir an bet \jSreunifcljen Union bas traurigfte
fSeifpieI qalien. ~oftrinelIer ~nbifferentismus ift lieibes, bie jIBurael bes
Unionismui3 ruie rein ffiefurtat. JIBer bie 2rbfolutqeH bes 2rutoritiitsanfpruclji3
ber @5djrift unb bie ~inbeutigfeit iqrer 2rui3f agen in beaug aUf aIle iJunba<
mentaHefjren tfjeoretifdj 10ie praftifdj anedennt, mun alIem Unionismus
gram fein."
,,@ilit ei3 eine brine ~orm bes Unionismus? 2rlIerbings. m3afjrenb
es fidj bei ben bdben erften ~ormen um ~nbifferenaierung ber 2efjrunter~
fdjiebe a10ifdjen ber Iutqerifcljen unb ber reformieden Stirdje qanbert, fann
eine iifjnlidje ~nbifferenaierung ber biliIifcljen 2eqre in ber lu±fjerifdjen Stirdje
feIber eintreten, bie e1l benen, bic e1l treu mit bern fSefenn±ni13 meinen, nidjt
erraubt, mit ge10iffen ;iLeUen ber Iutqerifdjen Stirdje in Stirdjengemeinfdjaft
au treten ober au bIeilien. Bruar befennen fidj aIle ;iLeUe ber Iutqerifdjen
Stirdje ber jIBelt offiaielI entrueber aur ganaen Stonfotbia bon 1580 ober
bodj aur 2rugsburgifdjen Stonfeffion unb au 2utqers StIeinem Sta±edjismU13,
berpflidjten audj fo ober fo iljre \jSaftoten unD \jStofeffoten barauf. 2rbet
iebermann rueil5, ban man Die ~erpflidjtung auf bie @5~mboIifdjen fSiidjer
andj in ben Beiten bei3 ffiationalismu13 tueitqin aufredj±erljarten qa± - ift
bodj feroft @5emler, ber ~ater ber mobernen fSibeifritif 10ie bes 2ilieraIii3mus
in ber ;itfjeologie iiberqaup±, flit iqre offiaielIe 2rnetfennung eingeireten -
unb babei bodj nidjti3 anbetes mefjr au biden ge10unt qat aIs bie ;itfjeologie
nnb ffieIigion bes natiirridjen ~enfdjen. ~arum ift bas Brief Stu-tement
ber ~iffoutifi)nobe gana im ffiedjt, roenn e13 fagt:
" 'The orthodox character of a Church is established not by its mere
name nor by its outward acceptance of, and subscription to, an orthodox
creed but by the doctrine which is actually taught in its pulpits, in its
theological seminaries, and in its publications. On the other hand,
a Church does not forfeit its orthodox character through the casual in-
trusion of errors, provided these are combated and eventually removed
by means of doctrinal discipline.'
,,~ai3 ift ei3, rua13 uns trennt nidjt nut bon bet neuen ~eutfdj~~bange~
Iifdjen !Hetdj13firdje, bie ia nadj ifjrer Stonftitution fo aUi3gefproc~en unied
roie nur miigIidj ift unb in ber 10eiteren ~ntruidTung ben Wamen ,Stitdje'
ilberqaupt nidjt mefjr betbient; bas trennte un13 audj fdjon bot 1933 bon
ben bamaIs befte~enben ,Iutqerifdjen 2anbesfirdjen'. ~enn feIOft in iqnen
fjatie bet @ntnbfat ber @Ieidjberedjtigung ber ffiidjtungen meqr obet rueniger
ben fSefenn±ni13boben un±erqiifjIt, unb 2e~r3udjt ruurbe nur ftaffen 2rus~
)lJiidjfen bei3 2iberaIi£imui3 gegeniiber geiib±. ~ai3 trennt un13 audj fjier~
aulanbe bon ber ~ereinigten 2utqerifdjen Stirdje. ~an mag gerne augeftefjen,
870 Theological Observer - .ftird)lid)~.8eit\Jefd)id)tlidje~
ban bie Sfonftitution biefe~ Sfitdjenfotpet~ IutIjetifdj ift; man mag anet~
fennen, ban e~ eine mannIjafte ~at mar, bie l&afljingtonA~tnarung bon
1920 burdj3ufeten mit iIjtet &nedennung bet @ale~butg~lRegel; man
mag geme anneIjmen, ban bie in ben l8etIjanblungen mit bet &metifanifdj~
EutIjetif djen .ltitdje, einf djIienIidj be~ @:late~ bon bet ~tttum~Iofigfeit bet
@:ldjtift, aUfgefteIIten @:late eIjtIidj unb auftidjtig gemeint unb nidjt ba~
lRefuItat poHtifdjet SfIugIjeit finb; man mag fidj bon ~et3en batiibet fteuen,
ban nidjt nut bide Eaien, fonbem audj gat mandje l.J3aftoten iIjt Eeben
unb &mt biefen @runbfuten gemiin filIjten unb tapfet gegen ba~ unIutIje~
tifdje l&efen in iIjtet eigenen Si'itdje untet mandjmal feIjt etfdjmetenben
Umftiinben fiimPfen. @;~ Iant fidj bodj bie ~atfadje nidjt megleugnen, ban
offiaielle l.J3ulilifationen bem ID'lobemgmu~ ftade 8ugeftiinbniffe gemadjt
Ijalien, hie ben @runb einreinen; ban an mandjen @:leminatien l.J3tofefforen
IeIjten, bie in bielen l.J3unften mit bem mefenntni~ bet SHtdje gelitodjen
Ijalien; ban an mandjen tIjeologifdjen &nftaIten eine @;infilIjrung in bie me~
fenntngfdjtiften bet Si'itdje iilietIjaupt untetlileilit; ban Si'anaeI~ unb &Itat~
gemeinfdjaft mit ben lReformieden meitIjin ungefttaft geiilit mitb unb ban
immet nodj ~unbede bon ben l.J3aftoten au ben Eagen, liefonbet~ ben g:rei~
maurem, geIjoten unb fogar fordje @emeinben bon olienIjet unbeIiiftigt lilei~
lien, meldje prinaipiell nut g:teimautet lierufen. l&it finb nidjt liIinb, fon~
bern edennen mit banfliatet g:teube an, ban bie ()lietIeitung bet Sfitdje
bie menigen iIjt betfaffung~miinig 3ufteIjenben ID'litteI, biefen 8uftiinben ein
@;nbe au madjen, nidjt unlieniitt rant, unb etliitten filt fie ein g:eftfteIjen unb
l&adjfen barin; aliet aUt 8eit befteIjen biefe 8uftiinbe nidjt nut nodj meit~
Ijin, fonbem e~ mitb audj bon ben @:l~noben, bie unmittelbat bamit IjanbeIn
fonten, bielfadj gat nidjg getan, unb e£l feIjIt feillft nidjt an nidjt getingen
Sheifen, bie fidj filt ben g:odbeftanb be£l ttautigen status quo einfeten unb
iIjte eigene ~nbiffetena aI~ redjte ebangeIifdje g:teiIjeit pteifen. Untet biefen
Umftanben Si'itdjengemeinfdjaft mit bet l8eteinigten EutIjetifdjen Sfitdje auf~
tidjten miite Unioni£lmu£l, meir e£l nidjt oIjne ~nbiffetentietung bet l&aIjt~
Ijeit gefdjeIjen fonnte, unb biefe ~nbiffentietung ift ein~ bet madanteften
~ennaeidjen be~ Unioni~mu~.
,,~odj mandje bon ~Ijnen maden fdjon lange batauf, ban idj enbIidj
nodj eine biede g:otm be£l Unioni£lmu~ nenne; benn fie meinen, Uniong~
mu~ fei fdjon ba botIjanben, ba man mit einem fitdjIidj i\ufammengeIjt obet
gat nUt mit iIjm bctet, oIjne bodj in a I len EeIjtpunften mit iIjm iibet~
einauftimmen. ~ie einen meinen, man miinte bodj nidjt blon in bet EeIjte
bon bet @:liinbe unb @nabe, bon