Franz Friday

Via Pieper’s Dogmatics Vol. 3

Fra Angelico, "The Calling of Peter and Andrew" (1430)

The usual distinction between an immediate and a mediate call (vocatio immediata et mediata) is Scriptural. Also Luther has it and substantiates it copiously (St L. XI:1910ff.). The Prophets and Apostles also Paul (Acts 22:21), were called immediately. Paul lays great stress on his immediate call in the headings of his Epistles (Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1, etc.). The teaching elders or pastors called by the congregation have a mediate call. It is of the greatest importance to bear in mind that the mediate call is no less divine that the immediate. Acts 20:28 says of the mediately called elders, or bishops, of the congregation at Ephesus: “The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the church of God.” This realization is very important for both the public servants and those whom they serve with the Word. See Walther, Pastorale, p. 29f., for details. Who are the agents through whom God appoints the preachers? This question has aroused great commotion and controversy in and outside the Church The Pope vociferously claims that only he can make “priests” through the bishops made by him. The Anglicans contend that clerics are made by bishops who have the stamp of the Apostolic Succession upon them. Romanizing Lutherans hold that legitimate servants of the Church can be appointed only by a self-perpetuating “holy order of the ministry.” Also political rulers have deemed it their prerogative to appoint preachers without consent of the parishes. Scripture teaches that neither Pope, nor the bishops, nor the clergy as an order, nor individual persons within or outside a congregation have the right and authority to confer the public office of the Word, but solely the people to whom is given all spiritual power on earth and to whom Word and Sacrament in particular have been entrusted originally; and these are the believers, or the Christians, and nobody else in the world. The believers possess all things (1 Cor. 3:21); the unbelievers nothing but death and eternal doom. In Matt. 28:18-20 not only the Apostles as such, but the Christians to the Last Day are charged with the administration of Word and Baptism. This is apparent from the closing words: “And, lo, I am with you alway even unto the end of the world.” And so in the command pertaining to the Lord’s Supper, “This do in remembrance of me,” not only the Apostles as such are addressed, but the Christians to the end of time. This is the interpretation given these words by Paul, who says (1 Cor. 11:26): “As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.” This is the Scripture doctrine so clearly stated in the words of the Smalcald Articles: “For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore, it is necessary for the Church ["die Kirchen"] to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift which properly is given to the Church [proprie - only to the Church and to no one else], which no human power can wrest from the Church… Here belong the statements of Christ which testify that the keys have been given to the Church [German: "der ganzen Kirche" - to every Christian] and not merely to certain persons, Matt. 18:20: ‘Where two or three are gathered together in my name,” etc.”

Franz Friday

Via Pieper’s Church Dogmatics Volume 3

Masaccio, "The Baptism of the Neophytes" (1425)

Also sanctification, the death of the old man and the resurrection to a new life, is not only typified by Baptism, but actually effected. In Rom. 6:1-11 Paul teaches that the Christians are dead unto sin, but alive unto God. This, however, is an effect of Baptism (dia tou baptismatos). Sanctification according to both its negative (dead unto sin) and its positive side (alive unto God in Christ Jesus) is a status quo created through Baptism. Amazing is Boehl’s notion that in Baptism the old man is mortified only symbollically, “in effegie” (Dogm. p.556 ff.), although this statement agrees with Boehl’s teaching that Baptism also remits sins only in effegie. Baptism, he says, is only signum absolutionis peccatorum. However, Holy Writ says that Baptism is not merely an image, effegies, but a means of forgiving sin. Likewise the mortification of the old man and the resurrection of the new, holy man is not only typified, but effected by Baptism. The Bible certainly teaches no other means of mortifying the old man or of causing the Christian to die to sin than the remission of sins, or the Gospel. By the Law sin is not mortified, but moblized. (Rom. 7:5-6). But believers in the Gospel, or the forgiveness of sins, are told: “Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the Law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). Now, just as surely as Baptism belongs to the Gospel, that is, is a means of forgiving sins, of washing away sins, of cleansing sin, etc., the old man himself is put to death in Baptism, not merely an effigy of him. And that is the very thing Paul asserts when he says that we are “buried with Christ by Baptism [dia tou baptismatos] into death” (Rom. 6:3ff.).

Franz Friday

Via Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics Vol. 3

Titian, "Abraham & Isaac" (1542-44)

Thieme reports that the Lutheran doctrine that good works are not necessary for salvation has been given up by most modern Protestant theologians, including the so-called “positive” theologians; instead, they have generally adopted the “idea of the religion of morality, that the fruit of faith is necessary for salvation (R.E. 3d ed., XXI, 120). Unfortunately that is true. Modern Protestant theology generally rejects the concept of Christ’s ’satisfactio vicaria’ as being too “juridical”; “it would deepen the concept of expiation by making the transformation of human life into its God-pleasing form a factor in the work of the Atonement.” That, however, is fundamentally the Roman doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works and agrees altogether with the Tridentinum in its rejection of the doctrine that the Gospel is the absolute promise of the eternal life “without the condition of observing the commandments” (Sess. VI, can. 20). It follows that the “good works,” which modern Protestant theology teaches as necessary for salvation, do not, as little as do the Papistical works, belong in the category of good works. Rather, they dishonor the perfect propitiation of Christ and thereby draw down God’s condemnation and curse upon all that teach and do them (Gal. 1:6-9; 5:12; Phil. 3:2; Gal. 3:10). Max Mueller has truly said that such works as are not the grateful offerings of faith, but are done for the purpose of earning salvation, belong in the realm of paganism. See Vol. II, 2, footnote 6. One cannot teach truly good works and at the same time teach that they are necessary for salvation. The latter cancels the former. When the adherent of modern Protestant theology really performs a good work, he does so because in his heart has has abandoned his theory of the necessity of good works for salvation (the theory that “the transformation of man is a factor in the work of atonement”), and does the good work solely as a thankoffering for the grace and salvation obtained ’sola fide.’

Franz Friday

Via Pieper’s Church Dogmatics Vol. 1, p. 289

Luther’s words read: “In this manner, without doubt, the Prophets studied Moses and the last Prophets the first, and with the phrase “in this manner” he refers to his preceding remarks about Scripture study, which God enjoins upon all Christians and all teachers, as he himself [Luther] and also Augustine read and studied the Scriptures. Such “searching and reading” cannot be done “unless one is there with the pen and jots down the special thoughts with which he is inspired while reading and studying, so that he can hold and retain them.” Also in the words following the remark quoted by Tholuck, Luther speaks of writings as they have been written by all teachers in the Church, also by his “dear sir and friend Dr. Wenzeslaus Link.” Lehre und Wehre, 1885, p. 329ff., reprints Luther’s entire preface to Link’s Annotations and then says: “From this it is evident that Luther is not speaking of the Prophets as writing the Scriptures, but as writing such books as his friend Wenzeslaus Link wrote and for which [Luther] composed the prefaces. Luther is not speaking of writing under the influence of ‘inspiration,’ as we use the term when we speak of the doctrine of inspiration, but of a study of the Prophets, ‘for they were not men of a kind that would put Moses on the shelf and dream their own visions and preach their dreams, but men who daily and diligently studied Moses.’ And in this sphere it was possible, says Luther, that ‘also hay, straw, wood, at times slipped into the writings of these good, faithful teachers and searchers of Scripture.’ … It is clear, then, that in this passage, so persistently quoted to prove Luther’s ‘liberal’ position in the doctrine of inspiration, Luther is not at all speaking of inspiration. Luthhardt, Kahnis, Cremer, etc., have either not looked up the passage in Luther at all or have read the passage inattentively.”

Franz Friday

Via Pieper’s Dogmatics Volume 1, p.366

A page from Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 shows a medieval scribe (the marginal note between columns one and two) criticizing a predecessor for changing the text: "Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it!"

In fact, we go astray in our exegesis of Scripture as soon as we think that the historical background given in Scripture needs to be supplemented by material from secular history and permit this supplementation to have any decisive influence on our exegesis. Such a procedure, too, would be an infraction of the truth that Scripture shines in its own light and would introduce also an element of uncertainty into the interpretation of Scripture, for who will guarantee he correctness of the background taken only from secular history? The Bible is the only book in the world in which no historical errors can occur. – The most flagrant misuse of contemporary history is committed when men undertake to correct, or cast doubt upon, the historical data of Scripture on the basis of “contemporary history.” We have pointed out above how modern theologians, who do not accept the Bible as God’s Word, correct, or at least cast doubt upon, the historical statements of Scripture by means of contemporary history furnished by Josephus. We close… with Luther’s oft-repeated admonition never to substitute a human interpretation for the “text,” i.e., for the words of Scripture themselves. He says: “With the text and from the foundation of the Holy Scriptures I have silenced and slain all my opponents. For whoever is well founded and practiced in the text will become a good and fine theologian, since a passage, or text, from the Bible has more weight than many commentators and glosses, which are not strong and sound and do not help in the controversy.” (Erl. 57, p.7.)

Franz Friday

Via Pieper’s Dogmatics vol. 1, p.343-44

The Original Text of Holy Scripture and the Translations

Since Scripture is intended for the use of all Christians, of what-ever station, sex, age, etc. (Deut. 6:6-9; Joshua 1:8; Is. 34:16; Neh. 8:2-8; 2 Kings 23:1-2; Luke 16:29ff.; John 5:39; Acts 17:11: “They searched the Scripture daily”; 2 Thess 2:15; 1 John 1:4; 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 3:15; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27: “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren”), it is God’s will that the Scriptures be translated into the various human languages. And accordingly the Church, from its beginning, made it a point to furnish translations of Scripture into foreign languages. We do not say that it is absolutely necessary that one must read the Scriptures in order to be saved. What is absolutely necessary is the knowledge of those fundamental articles of the Christian faith through which repentance and faith in the remission of sins purchased by Christ is brought about in man (Luke 24:46-47), and this knowledge may be obtained by the mere hearing of a Scriptural sermon or instruction. The dogmaticians teach that a man may come to faith and thus become a member of the Christian Church without as much as knowing that there is a Holy Scripture. Gerhard: “It is not simply and absolutely necessary to salvation to believe that there are any divine Scriptures if this unbelief issues from simple ignorance, for many have been saved who have grasped the essentials, or fundamentals, of the Christian faith.” But after men have become Christians, it is indeed God’s will that they read the Scriptures, search the Scriptures, and judge according to the Scriptures, as is evident from the passages quoted above and as will be set forth more fully later. The contention of the Papacy that the reading of Scripture cannot be permitted to all Christians because that would expose the “layman” to the danger of interpreting Scripture according to their own thoughts and thus introducing false doctrine is beside the point, for experience has shown that it is, above all, the clergy and ‘primus omnium,’ the Pope who have interpreted the Scripture according to their own mind and filled the world with the most horrible heresies.

Franz Friday

Via “The Glorious Blessing of Brotherly Fellowship in Faith,” Thesis I

All Christians are in inner, invisible fellowship with one another, because through the working of the Holy Spirit they altogether believe on Christ as their Savior and through this faith are bound together with Christ as the only Head of the church and with one another into one spiritual body. Also those Christians who are in heterodox churches are in this fellowship (unitas ecclesiae interna sive fidei in Christum, the internal unity of the church or by faith in Christ). The first thesis points to the basis or necessary presupposition of the external fellowship of faith. This is the inner, invisible fellowship which all Christians share with each other through faith in Christ. Because all of them believe in Christ as their Savior and are children of God and heirs of eternal life and members of the one body of Christ, therefore they can and should practice fellowship in faith with one another here in the world. Of course, at all times there have been people who have participated externally in the fellowship of faith without being in the inner, invisible fellowship of the church. But that is then only external pretense, conscious hypocrisy, or self-deception. From that has arisen a repulsive caricature of true fellowship in faith. External fellowship in faith always has an inner presupposition, a presupposition in the heart: that is faith, faith in Christ, fellowship in the gospel. Those whom God has called to the fellowship of his Son can also practice fellowship in faith with each other. Those who want to practice this Christian fellowship in faith properly with each other must be “in Christ.” Otherwise the fellowship in faith becomes hypocrisy and a Judas kind of friendship. The apostle admo-nishes those who are one body and one spirit “to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). All Christians are in this inner, invisible fellowship, in spite of their great external differences. As far as their natural life in this world is concerned, there are great differences among Christians. Christians are different in their sex and age, in their earthly property and education. Among them there are male and female, old and young, poor and rich, educated and uneducated. They are different in race: there are white, black, yellow, and copper-colored Christians. They dwell in various places: they live in the wilderness and on the sea, in the forests and on the prairies, in the cities and in the country. They are separated by oceans and high moun-tains. They live in completely different civic situations: they live in republics and monarchies; they are princes and subjects, employers and employees; they are Democrats and Republicans. But there is a powerful, wondrous unity among them in the midst of all external differences: they have one faith. And what kind of faith is that? It is not the faith according to which one is convinced that there is a god. The heathen also have this faith. It is also not the faith of the old and new rationalists and Unitarians, who certainly still speak of Christ but deny Christ’s deity and vica-rious atonement and therefore see the essence of Christianity as morality. It is also not the faith of the Roman Catholics, who confess Christ as God and Man, but want to be saved not only through faith in God’s grace in Christ, but also through the so-called infused grace, that is, through their own works. It is also not the faith of the Arminian sects and of synergistic Lutherans, who certainly confess Christ’s deity, his divine-human work, and partially also faith in Christ as the only means for obtaining salvation, but in addition want to make out of faith itself a partially human work, and make the works of the law, good behavior, and lesser guilt into the basis of sal-vation. It is also not intellectual faith of those who are externally in the orthodox church and can speak correctly about faith, but their heart does not grasp or embrace Christ as the Savior of sinners (fides acquisita). No, the faith which forms the inner, invisible unity of the Christian church is faith in Christ worked by the Spirit; it is the faith which has Christ alone in his vicarious atonement as the object for obtaining righteousness and salvation; it is the faith which grasps the Christ outside of us in the promise of the gospel; it is the faith which trusts only on God’s mercy in Christ. In other words, it is faith in the Christian doctrine of justification which the apostle describes with the words, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (Ro 3:28). Only this faith, which is produced in hearts by the Holy Spirit without human cooperation, makes a person into a member of the Christian church, as Scripture says, “Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord (pisteu/ontev tw|= kuri/w|) and were added to their number” (Ac 5:14), namely, to the congregation or church. This faith is the great equalizer in the Christian church. Through this faith all are justified before God, as it is written, “We … know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:15,16). Through this faith all are equally children of God: “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26). Through this faith all have received the Spirit: “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?” (Gal 3:2). Through this faith all have peace with God and the hope of eternal life: “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,… and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God” (Ro 5:1,2). Through this faith all differences of gender, age, position, nationality, and education are abolished before God. The Holy Spirit did not become tired, as it were, of enjoining this is Holy Scripture again and again. After the apostle Paul told the Christians “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26), he continued, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). A still fuller enumeration of the members of the church is given by the apostle, “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian (ba/rbarov), Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all” (Col 3:11). Through faith in the gospel those who are heathen according to their descent become “Abraham’s seed,” “children of Abraham”: “Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal 3:7), and “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed” (Gal. 3:29). The prophecies of the Old Testament speak of a great assembly of peoples on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, e.g., Isaiah 2:2f; 60:3f and often. Through faith in the gospel the peoples, without changing their location, have come to Mount Zion; the Old Testament prophecies about the assembly of the peoples are made explicit, “You have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God” (Heb 12:22)… All Christendom on earth has just one mind. All Christians in the whole world really have one mind in spite of their different view-points in earthly things. Insofar as they are Christians, they have exactly the same thoughts about themselves and about God. They regard themselves as damnable sinners before God; they regard God as being gracious to them for Christ’s sake. The heavenly flame of love glows in all their hearts, for faith is active or works through love (Gal 5:6). Connected with the invisible unity of faith, of thoughts, and of mind is, as Luther expresses it, also the invisible unity of being. Through faith they are all one body, namely the spiritual body whose head is Christ. The apostle says, “We, who are many, are one body” (1 Co 10:17), and “You are the body of Christ” (1 Co 12:27), and “He [Christ] is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18). That is the wonderful, inner, invisible fellowship of the Christian church. Luther writes:

Christendom means an assembly of all the people on earth who believe in Christ, as we pray in the Creed, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the communion of saints.” This community or assembly means all those who live in true faith, hope, and love. Thus the essence, life, and nature of Christendom is not a physical assembly, but an assembly of hearts in one faith, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 4:5, “One baptism, one faith, one Lord.” Accordingly, regardless of whether a thousand miles separates them physically, they are still called one assembly in spirit, as long as each one preaches, believes, hopes, loves, and lives like the other. So we sing about the Holy Spirit, “You have brought many tongues together into the unity of faith.” This is what spiritual unity really means, on the basis of which men are called a “communion of saints.” This unity alone is sufficient to create Christendom, and without it, no unity—be it that of city, time, per-sons, work, or whatever else it may be—can create Christendom.”

Franz Friday

Vai Pieper’s Dogmatics vol. 1, p. 510

The activity of the evil angels against the Church is portrayed fully in Scripture. According to Matt. 16:18 “the gates of hell” are continually waging war against the Church, and it is Christ alone who preserves the Church against the onslaughts of the powers of hell. Behind everything that harms the Church are the evil spirits. They bring about the inattention of the hearers of the Word (Luke 8:12: “Then cometh the devil and taketh away the Word out of their hearts.”) and the falsification of the divine doctrine, which Christ would have His Church maintain in purity (Matt. 13:25: “But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat”; 1 Tim. 4:1ff,:”the doctrines of devils”). Especially the Papacy is described in Scripture as the devil’s masterpiece in the Church, 2 Thessalonians 2. We have lost the Biblical judgment on false doctrine if we do not regard it as the work of the devil. Also persecution and oppression of the Church by the State and organizations within the State is a result of the activity of the evil spirits. As Satan increasingly wages war on the Church so he is also in arms against the divine order of the State and the family. He persuades David to take a census of the nation (1 Chron. 21:1) and Ahab to wage war against the Syrians (1 Kings 22:21-22). It is the devil who forbids to marry (1 Tim. 4:1-2) and who tempts married people to infidelity (1 Cor. 7:5). Scripture also tells us that God uses the evil angels not only to punish the godless (2 Thess. 2:11-12), but also to try believers, as was the case with Job (Job 1:7ff) and the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12:7).

Franz Friday

Via F. Pieper, “Our Position in Doctrine and Practice Lecture – delivered before the 1893 Synod of Delegates of the Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other states.”

“That discipline in doctrine must remain standing in the first place is self-explanatory, for the right doctrine is the foundation for everything, or, to speak with Luther, there “where doctrine is false, living cannot be helped either.” But that discipline in living should also not be neglected follows naturally from the fact that all who remain lying in their deadly sins have no hope of eternal life. How, then, discipline in the church should be exercised and how carefully one must distinguish between sins of weakness and deadly sins, to avoid a situation where, as the blessed Dr. Walther expresses it, “the church discipline overextends and the whole Christian congregational life is transformed, contrary to the Gospel into a life under constant church discipline to the Law” – this is not the place to go into that in more detail. I would just like to mention this one thing: A church discipline that lacks the spirit of brotherly love, just outward and legalistically handled church discipline is poison and death for individuals and for the whole congregation, and before God, the greatest wrong; a discipline in heartfelt mercy, truly evangelically handled, is spiritual medicine and one of the most excellent parts of right Christian living. Luther says “Let all monks and holy orders, fused into one big lump, demonstrate that they can be said to have won a single brother.” But I have to break off from this point in order to be able to direct to a few more points of church practice.”

Franz Friday

by Francis August Otto Pieper

Doubts disappear like mist before the sun, as soon as you hear the clear testimony of Scripture, which she witness to herself. The word of Scripture, she simply calls the word of the Holy Spirit, Heb. 3:7; Acts. 28:25. She says (2 Pet. 1:2), especially in relation to the Scriptures of the Old Testament (v. 20.): “The holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” From the Scriptures of the Old Testament, as we have it written to us in words, she says (2 Tim. 3:16.) “All Scripture is God breathed.” That this writing may not be “broken” (John 10, 3:5.) is an inviolable truth, especially in terms of a few individual words, and seemingly incidental remarks, as Psalm 82:6 says. “Ye are gods” (John. 10:34.). One should search and investigate this Scripture, but no one should dare to examine it in order to stand as a critic over the Scripture and want to weed out alleged errors; instead let them stand in every word they hear and believe her, “because I tell you truly, till heaven and earth pass, the smallest letter will not dissolve, not even a tittle of the law,” Matthew, 5:l8, “They have Moses and the prophets, they hear sameness,” Lk. 16:29., “And if someone takes away words from the book of this prophecy, God will dismiss his part in the book of life, and from the holy city, and of that which is written in this book,” Rev. 22:19. Truly, it is not the fault of the Scripture, if any man doubts what he is to think of the Scripture, whether it is God’s infallible word, or whether fallible human opinion is to be found in her.

Let us take another example from the present. In dispute was the doctrine of the conversion of a man to God. The Scripture calls man “dead in sin,” and describes his conversion as a resurrection from spiritual death, Eph. 2:5: “Since we were dead in sins, He made us alive together with Christ.” The Scripture speaks about the natural man, not just any ability to understand spiritual things, but anything, to will and to act: “What is born of the flesh is flesh,” John 3:6., “The natural man receiveth not the spirit of God, it’s foolishness to him, and he can not recognize it,” I Cor. 2:14. But it also describes the natural way of human beings as such, according to which they only oppose this same God: “To be fleshly minded is enmity against God” Rom. 8:7. When faith in Christ, through the creation of the conversion is done (Col. 2, l2.), according to Scripture it is a gift from God for Christ’s sake: “To you is given for Christ’s sake… That you… To him that believeth” Phil 1:29, an effect of the almighty power of God which says: “We believe after the working of his mighty strength, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead and on his right hand in heaven,” Eph. 1:19-20. Col. 2:12. What else is there to be held up against all the errors of Pelagius to our present time!

Franz Friday

Via What Is Christianity? pp. 1-2

Christianity has been in existence for nearly two thousand years, – indeed, for almost six thousand, if we take into account the first Messianic promise. Can it be then, that Christians still disagree as to what Christianity really is? Is the nature of Christianity still a debatable question among its adherents? To this we reply: Christians indeed fully agree as to the nature of Christianity. All those who are really members of the Christian Church truly believe that through faith in Christ, the Savior of sinners, they have forgiveness of sins and salvation, not through their own merits or works. Because of this faith, and solely because of it, they are members of the Christian Church. Whoever has his faith belongs to the Christian Church; whoever has not this faith does not belong to the Christian Church. Even those who belong to the Christian Church under the Papacy and within the sectarian bodies believe that they have forgiveness of sins through Christ and not through their own works or moral conduct. This is the one faith which St. Paul ascribes to the Christian Church when he writes: “One Lord, one faith,” Eph. 4:5. This is the “unity of the Spirit” which the Holy Ghost works and preserves in all Christians, as we confess of Him in the hymn: – Who the Christian Church doth even, Keep in unity of spirit. The faith and confession of all Christians is expressed in the words of Scripture: “The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John 1, 7, and: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law,” Rom. 3, 28. We find it also in the beautiful children’s hymn: – Christ’s precious blood and righteousness, My glory are, my beauteous dress; So clothed, before my God I’ll stand, When I shall reach the heavenly land.

I begin with our position on the Holy Scripture. Not only in Christianity outside in general, but also in some parts of the church that call themselves Lutheran, the infallible authority of the Holy Scripture is attacked nowadays. The Holy Scripture is supposedly no longer the infallible Word of God, to which all that are called human have to subject themselves in the obedience of faith, but rather a book that also contains erroneous opinions of people, as to which people can and must exercise criticism. Such attacks on the Holy Scripture are nothing new. Heathens and open unbelievers have asserted at all times that there could be found errors and contradictions in the Scripture and that therefore the Scripture could not be the Word of God. Hence we find the fathers of the Church, as well as also the later teachers of the Church occupied occasionally with repelling these attacks on the Holy Scripture. But it is new that in our time the teachers of the Church, and actually some of the most respected, make common cause with heathens and unbelievers in the attack on the Holy Scripture. This is the unique situation of our time! The teachers of the church, from defenders of the Holy Scripture, have become its accusers. They now also assert–in word and writing–that not the whole Holy Scripture is God’s Word and infallible truth. The old church doctrine of inspiration, that is, the teaching that the holy writers did not write on their own, but only wrote that which the Holy Spirit gave them, must be given up. One must distinguish between essential and inessential, between main and secondary things. Those are inspired by the Holy Ghost, these not. In the latter things, one must admit errors. It is obvious that, with this, an entirely new order of things is being shaped in the Christian Church. The relation of people to the Scripture is entirely changed. People are no longer under, but above, the Scripture. For even if one confesses that all essential parts of the saving truth are found in the Scripture, the determination, what in the Scripture is infallible truth and to be accepted by faith, depends on people. Ultimately, the Scripture does not determine our faith, but people, who distinguish between truth and error in the Scripture. God no longer rules in the Church through the Word of the Holy Scripture, but people are installed as regents in the Church, who draw the distinction between the truth and the supposed error in the Scripture.This position is Godless. Anyone who assumes errors in Scripture contradicts Christ to His face. He said of the whole Scripture and every single word of it: “And Scripture cannot be broken.” Those who wish to restrict the inspiration of the Holy Scripture contradict the Apostle of Christ who testifies: “All Scripture is inspired of God.”But here also the Devil attempts to transform himself into an angel of light. The deniers of the inerrancy of Scripture assert that they are dealing in the interest of true faithfulness and piety. They claim against us that faith which is so simply based on the Bible is literalism which promotes a dead orthodoxy. On the other hand, with their position, the matter of Christianity is placed in one’s inner experience. Christians are told to accept that as truth which has in their spiritual experience proved true. In that way, inner faithfulness is supposedly furthered and placed ahead of the externalization of Christianity. Christianity is claimed to be something that finds its certainty in itself and does not need the guarantee in the letters of Scripture.What is new here is only a number of expressions, inasmuch as one calls this kind of theology nowadays “Christian science”, but can call it more accurately a variation of doctrine from the single principle of the born-again or Christian “I”, out of the Christian consciousness, out of the faith of the Church, etc. The thing is old. We are dealing here with the same thing, the same error, that Luther fought with the Enthusiasts. It is the “Spirit”, which is of itself and through itself so smart and pious that it does not need the external, objectively certain Word of God, yes, feels itself unduly cramped by it. Luther, and after him, our church, speaks of the piety of this spirit, thus: “Everything which is proclaimed about the spirit without this Word (that is, the external Word) and Sacrament, that is the devil.” (SA III.VIII.10; Triglotta p. 496). We must enter the same judgment against the newer theology, insofar as it would lead us from the certain, externally inspired Word of the Holy Scripture to the “inner faith”. It does not impress us that this is being called “science”, and that it is being called the true “faith” does not catch on with us. We know what it is. It is unbelief.
Faith is, in Biblical and church usage, to rely–even against reason and “experience”–on God’s Word, as it is written in the Scripture. Only to want to believe and hold firmly to that which shows itself to people as true and acceptable–now that is- -again according to the usage of the Scripture and the Christian Church–unbelief! It is not the Christian, but the unchristian “I”, that acts that way. It is the spirit of revolution of man against God in His infallible Word, around which one seeks to hang a very threadbare little cloak of faith and piety.With this recipe, everything in the church of God is turned backwards and upside down. Faith no longer rests on the Scripture, but the Scripture rests on faith. The Church is no longer built on the ground of the Apostles and Prophets, rather the church stands on its own and the writings of the Apostles and Prophets are a growth, needing improvements, on the tree of the Church. It is not the Scripture that judges, what is right or wrong in the Church, but the Church judges what is true and false in the Scripture. In short: The supremacy of the so-called “Christian I” is proclaimed. The Church is to be the sovereign of the Word of God, and thereby of God. It is anarchy in the territory of the Church. An anarchism in the Church steps up to join the anarchism in the territory of the state in our time. It is the necessary consequence thereof, that one surrenders the Christian teaching of the inspiration of Scripture, and with that the full inerrancy of Scripture.We wish, by the grace of God, to stay thoroughly far away from this insane drive–for one cannot name it anything else.

Franz Friday

The following article appears in Volume II, page 437 of Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics. Pieper explains why the correct translation is justification “by faith” or “through faith” and not “because of faith.”

5 The Function of Faith in Justification: In the preceding characterization of faith we have stated again and again that justifying faith must be viewed merely as the instrument, or the receptive organ (medium lepticon), for apprehending the forgiveness of sins offered in the Gospel. But the many errors which have arisen in the Church on this point call for a special section in which the instrumental character of faith is more fully set forth.

On this score, especially the clear teaching of Scripture has been rendered obscure. The Biblical terms ‘by faith’ and ‘through faith’ have been given an entirely unscriptural content. It must be stressed that no intrinsic value dares be ascribed to justifying faith in addition to the grace of God in Christ. This is precisely the meaning of the statement that faith is merely the instrument of receiving the grace of God; and that is exactly what Scripture teaches. In treating of justification Scripture places faith in opposition to all works and all goodness in man. ‘By faith, without the deeds of the Law’ (Rom. 4:5). The Lutheran Confessions declare again and again: ‘The sole office and property of faith is that it is the means or instrument by and through which God’s grace and the merit of Christ in the promise of the Gospel are received, apprehended, accepted, applied to us, and appropriated’ (Trigl. 929, F. C., Sol. Decl., III, 38). ‘Faith justifies and saves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but only because it receives the promised mercy’ (Apol., Art. IV [II], 56; 147, ibid., 86; Trigl. 919, F. C., Sol. Decl., III, 13).

That is also the meaning of the Lutheran axioms: ‘Faith justifies not in the category of quality, but in the category of relation’; ‘Faith justifies not as an act by itself, but because of the object which it grasps’; ‘Faith justifies not as a work, but as an instrument.’

Franz Friday

Pieper, St. L. III: 1887

The question how the theologian attains subjective certainty, how he attains personal assurance of the truth of the Christian doctrine (erkenntnis-theoretische Frage), is much discussed today. The moderns, both of the “conservative” and the “liberal” wing, raise the “problem,” and some of their spokesmen are free to confess that it is a difficult problem. But the difficulty they encounter is of their own making. It is due to their repudiation of Scripture as God’s Word. Scripture gives a clear and simple answer to the question concerning subjective certitude. Christ tells all Christians, including the theologians: “If ye continue in My Word… ye shall know the truth” (John 8:31-32). Christ here states two things. First, there is such a thing as Christian certainty, “Ye shall now the truth,” and second, that this certain knowledge of the truth (Wahrheitsgewissheit) is identical with continuing in the Word of Christ, believing His Word. Faith is certainty. And when we ask further how this faith, which continues in Christ’s Word, is brought about, Scripture again gives is a clear and definite answer. It is the Word of Christ itself which works faith in the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:17: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God”). The reason for this is that the Word of Christ, when we hear and read it and thus apprehend it with our mind, carries with it the power of the Holy Ghost. Our Christian faith, as Paul declares (1 Cor. 2:5), is not produced by, and does not stand in, “the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” So, then, it is the sure Word which produces the Christian assurance. As Luther’s axiom has it: “Man is certus passive, sicut Verbum Dei certum est active.” Elaborating this statement, Luther says: “Where this Word [of God] takes possession of the heart by true faith, it makes the heart firm, sure, and certain as it is itself, unmoved, stubborn, hard, in the face of temptation, the devil, death, and anything whatsoever, in proud confidence laughing to scorn all that spells doubt and fear, ire and wrath, for it knows that the Word of God cannot lie.”

Franz Friday

Pieper – “Holy Scripture,” in Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, 364-65.

Exegesis, in its double function of the enarratio of the Scriptural content and of the removal of obscurities by means of the clear passages, is a most serious and sacred occupation. The Scriptures are the Word of God, and adding to them or subtracting from them is strictly forbidden to everyone (Dt. 4:2). Whoever attempts to shed more light on dark passages of Scripture than Scripture itself offers in its clear passages is adding to God’s Word. And whoever obscures clear passages by bringing in obscure passages is taking away from God’s Word. Let the exegete particularly study the words ‘If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God’ (1 Pet. 4:11). If he is not certain that he is speaking God’s Word, he should say so and – following Luther’s advice – leave the passage unexplained. If the exegete wishes to hold the right course and keep the fountain of the Christian doctrine clear, he must ever bear in mind the divine truth (Ps. 119:105; 2 Pet. 1:19) that ‘the Scriptures are a light in themselves,” that Scriptura sua radiat luce. He must reject every interpretation which is based on something outside Scripture.

Proverbs 30:

5 Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
or else he will rebuke you, and you will be found a liar.

7 Two things I ask of you;
do not deny them to me before I die:
8 Remove far from me falsehood and lying;
give me neither poverty nor riches;
feed me with the food that I need,
9 or I shall be full, and deny you,
and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’
or I shall be poor, and steal,
and profane the name of my God.

Franz Friday

Via Pieper’s Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, 363ff.

He who would determine the meaning of the clear passages [of Scripture] through still other passages engages in a work of interminable adjustments, makes the entire Scriptures uncertain and obscure, and converts them into an inextricable chaos. Yes, there is the rule: ‘One passage must be explained by another,’ but as Luther adds immediately: ‘Namely, a doubtful and obscure passage (locus ambiguus et obscurus) must be explained by means of a clear and certain passage.’ The clear passage needs no further explanation. Shall we adopt the senseless exegetical method of illuminating the light by darkness and explaining the clear matter with by obscure? This method has been fostered carefully by the errorists of all times. After Luther had stated that in the obscure passages of Scripture nothing else is found ‘than what is found at other places in the clear passages,’ he adds: ‘Then the heretics come forward and explain the obscure passages according to their own mind and contend with them against the clear passages, the foundation of our faith.’ (St. L. V:335)

These severe strictures of Luther apply in even higher degree to the modern theologians who would explain the whole Bible and in particular also all clear passages of Scripture according to the ‘whole of Scripture.’ If anything is pure ‘human self-conceit’ (Menschen-duenkel), the very antithesis of ‘Scripture,’ it is this ‘whole of Scripture,’ which introduced by Schleiermacher, has penetrated, particularly through Hofmann’s influence, into the modern so-called Lutheran theology. This ‘whole of Scripture’ lies entirely outside of Scripture. It is the product of the illusion that the Christian doctrine forms a whole or a system agreeable to human reason and the several doctrines of Scriptures must be adjusted to fit into this system. Before us lies the proof that this exegetical method makes a mockery of the entire Christian truth and turns the entire Scriptures into a shapeless ruin. Modern theologians admit that Schleiermacher by means of the ‘whole of Scripture’ cast the entire Christian doctrine overboard. And Hofmann, too, denied, as the result of his system, the inspiration of Scripture, the satifactio vicaria, original sin, etc., and, by principle, the entire Christian doctrine, though he for his person did not draw this final conclusion. In short, exegesis according to the ‘whole of Scripture’ doe not permit Scripture to be its ‘own light,’ but this ‘whole of Scripture,’ which Schleiermacher, Hofmann, etc., extract from their own Ego, is made the light of Scripture.

Franz Friday

Via Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, vol. 3: 363

Exposing the fraud perpetrated by the “enthusiasts,” who, under the guise of interpreting Scripture, by referring to John 6 entirely did away with Scripture, Luther wrote: “It is the arrogance and fatuous malice of the wicked devil who would in this serious matter make fools of us through these ‘enthusiasts’ by pretending a readiness to accept the instruction of Scripture if only he be first permitted to get rid of Scripture or twist it to suit his prejudice. Just as if I would deprive my opponent of his weapons by cunning words and gave him in place thereof painted paper weapons – just like his – and then would dare him to vanquish me with them and fight me off. Oh, that would be a daring hero – fit to be spit upon!” (St. L. XX:780) Back of the proposal of the “enthusiasts” to explain the words of institution with John 6 lay the thought, more or less clearly expressed, that the sense of all Scripture passages, including the clear ones, must be determined by comparing them with other passages. Luther had no use for such an exegetical method. He wrote: “The result of this method will be that no passage in Scripture will remain certain and clear, and the comparison of one passage with another will never end… To demand that clear and certain passages be explained by drawing in other passages amounts to an iniquitous deriding of the truth (nequiter veritatem illudere) and the injection of fog into the light (nebulas in lucem vehere). If one set out to explain all passages by first comparing them with other passages, he would be mixing up Scripture into an uncertain and wild chaos (totam Scripturam in infinitum et incertum chaos confundere). Is not this pain enough? No doubt you will see that this is the case.” Luther is unalterably convinced that God gave Holy Scripture such a form that the entire Christian doctrine is revealed and submitted in passages which need no “exegesis” (exegesis in the sense of removing obscurities).

Franz Friday

Franz Pieper, Church Dogmatics, vol. 3:362

Only in this way the principle is maintained: Scripturae ex Scripturae explicanda est. Luther: In this manner Scripture is its own light. It is a fine thing when Scripture explains itself. Therefore do not believe the Pope’s lies; freely regard as dark whatever is not approved by clear passages of Scripture. Thus we have first had to remove the error that the Scriptures are obscure and must be illuminated by the doctrines of men; this had taken a deep hold. It is certainly a capital error and a blasphemy; in fact, it amounts to taking the Holy Ghost to school and teaching Him how to speak.” (St. L. XI: 2335f.)

Diametrically opposed to this view is the false conception of “faith” or the “analogy of faith” held by all those who do not permit the “certae et clarae Scripturae,” the “clear, lucid passages of Scripture,” to constitute the rule, or analogy, of faith, but substitute for it a “faith,” which, with complete disregard of the clear and lucid passages, they have constructed out of their own notions. This “faith” is to be the light with which to elucidate the clear passages of Scripture, which need no elucidation whatever! The Sacramentarians were exegetes of this type. In order to evade Scripture and retain their own thoughts concerning the Lord’s Supper, they proposed that Luther should disregard all passages dealing with the Lord’s Supper from john 6. The modern theologians belong in the same class of exegetes. In order not to be instructed and reproved by Scripture, but to be able, undisturbed by Scripture, to make the “pious self-consciousness” the source and norm of theology, they take recourse under the leadership of Schleiermacher and of Hofmann to the “whole of Scripture.” And the old method of taking the Christian doctrines from the passages which treat of these doctrines they seek to discredit with the cry that this outmoded method converts Scripture into a “collection of proof-texts.”

Franz Friday

Here is the opening passage from “Our Position inn Doctrine and Practice,” delvered before the 1893 Synod of Delegates of the Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other States, by F. Pieper (download the full address):

I begin with our position on the Holy Scripture. Not only in Christianity outside in general, but also in some parts of the church that call themselves Lutheran, the infallible authority of the Holy Scripture is attacked nowadays. The Holy Scripture is supposedly no longer the infallible Word of God, to which all that are called human have to subject themselves in the obedience of faith, but rather a book that also contains erroneous opinions of people, as to which people can and must exercise criticism.

Such attacks on the Holy Scripture are nothing new. …

For Franz Friday, here is Part I of Pieper’s “C.F.W. Walther as Theologian”

For Walther, the center of all Christian doctrine is the doctrine of justification, which is the doctrine that a person is justified before God and saved by grace through faith in Christ. All other doctrines serve this doctrine as requisites or flow from it as consequences. And since Walther always saw this doctrine endangered by individual errors too, he therefore fought all falsity with determination, conceding no compromises. To him, this doctrine was also the central point in the fight for the correct doctrine of the Church.1 Walther demonstrated how, for example, the teaching which claims that only members of a specific visible church are the only ones to receive salvation, as well as the pretense that the validity of absolution is dependent on the ordination of the officiant, overturns the doctrine of justification. He used the same proof in relation to the other false teachings which he battled, for example, Chiliasm, the physical effect of the sacraments, synergism, and so on. “The struggle against false doctrine,” he said, “first attains practical significance for the individual Christian when he sees how through the corruption of other articles of doctrine this doctrine [i.e. justification] cannot remain pure either.”2 Walther lived in this doctrine as a Christian as well as a theologian. Even his opponents admitted that he understood how to speak powerfully about this doctrine. Walther delivered the most lectures about this doctrine during the so-called Lutherstunden. Through both pinpointing the correct way, as well as the vivid portrayal of the usual errors, Walther instructed above all things at the theological seminary how this doctrine is properly preached. We do not believe we are suggesting too much when we say that after Luther and Chemnitz there is arguably no teacher of our church who attested to the doctrine of justification more vividly than Walther. Walther had Luther as his teacher in this doctrine too. He took the individual, brightly glimmering points of light which are found concerning this doctrine among the subsequent teachers and combined them into one bright beam.

As we set out to present Walther’s position on the doctrine of justification we first make reference to how Walther characterized the doctrine of justification with respect to its importance, etc. in general. Secondly we will make mention of and highlight the points which Walther especially accentuated in order to keep this doctrine intact against the errors of his time.

According to Walther, the doctrine of justification is what differentiates the Christian religion from all other so-called religions; it is the hallmark of the Christian religion. If we speak of justification, he says,3 then we are speaking of the Christian religion, for the doctrine of the Christian religion is really nothing other than the revelation of God about how one is justified and saved by the redemption which came about through Christ Jesus. All other religions show other ways which are said to lead to heaven (namely the way of works), only the Christian religion shows a different way to heaven through her doctrine of justification. With this doctrine she shows the world something unheard of and unimaginable: thoughts that were hidden in the heart of God before the foundation of the world. And in a different place4 he says that this doctrine is the heavenly sun of the Christian religion through which she differentiates herself from all other religions, just as the light does from the darkness. Therefore, whoever assaults the doctrine of justification encroaches on all doctrine, the entire Bible, and the entire Christian religion. Another way to salvation, and thus an entirely different religion is taught wherever this doctrine is falsified. Fighting for the doctrine of justification, the Bible, and the Christian religion are all one and the same. Without the doctrine of justification the entire Christian religion is like a clockwork without a spring. All other doctrines lose their meaning when the doctrine of justification is incorrect. When the cornerstone falls, the entire building collapses. In the same way, all of Christendom collapses where the doctrine of justification falls. The church then becomes a mere reformatory. As far as the understanding of the Scriptures is concerned: When theologians who do not properly understand the doctrine of justification handle and cite the Scriptures, they do not dwell in the Scriptures, instead they sit in front of a door that is closed to them. For without the doctrine of justification the Bible becomes for the people a book of ethics with all sorts of curiousancillary teachings.

Therefore the doctrine of justification is the “grandest chief article of the Christian faith.” “As long as someone has not come any further than thinking the doctrine of justification is also an important article, then he is still in the dark.” Without the doctrine of justification all praise of Christ, grace, and the Means of Grace are nothing. All teaching in the church must serve this article. That is not to say that one should or could teach only this doctrine. All revealed doctrines must be taught with utmost diligence. But even when one deals with hell, the goal must be to show the rescue from hell to those who are listening.

The awareness of the doctrine of justification is absolutely necessary for the salvation of the individual. Christians are people who live in the awareness of the doctrine of justification, that is, people who believe that God by grace forgives their sins for Christ’s sake. This awareness, this faith makes a person a Christian. “Upon this article,” Walther says, “rests all salvation, and therefore it is absolutely important for every Christian. It wouldn’t help a thing if one correctly knew all other doctrines, for example the holy Trinity, the person of Christ, etc., but would not know or believe this article.”5 This article is indeed the article with which the church stands or falls. “For what is the church? She is the sum of the believing Christians. Thus the church is present where Christ rules and governs in grace; but he rules inwardly in people by offering and administering them grace. Where he has conquered a heart his kingdom is present. Where therefore there are reborn, living Christians, there is his church. But now no person becomes a true, reborn Christian without this doctrine of justification. Every other doctrine can indeed make great Pharisees, but not Christians. One becomes a Christian only when the Holy Spirit reveals in the heart that one is truly redeemed by Christ, and has the forgiveness of sins, a reconciled heavenly father, righteousness valid before God, and can lie confidently even on one’s deathbed.”6 And in a different place Walther says, “Luther wasn’t exaggerating when he said that the church cannot stand for one hour without the article of justification. For the church is not some outward institution, rather it is the gathering of the believers. Where there are not believers there is also no church.”

Franz Friday

The Witness of History for Scripture
(Homologoumena and Antilegomena)

FRANCIS PIEPER

(From Christian Dogmatics, Vol. I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], pp. 330-38.)

Besides Scripture’s own testimony as to its divine authority, we have, through the gracious providence of God, ample historical testimony to that effect. For the Scriptures of the Old Testament we have the testimony of the Jewish Church and of Christ and His Apostles. Christian theologians of all ages are right in saying: If the Jews had been mistaken as to their canon or had falsified it, Christ would not have so unconditionally and without limitation pointed to the Scripture in the hands of the Jews and asserted their inviolability, as He does, e.g., in the words: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them” (Luke 16; 29); “All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me” (Luke 24:44); “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me” (John 5:39); “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). — There is, however, no historical witness for the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Neither the Jewish Church nor Christ recognized them as canonical.1

For the Scriptures of the New Testament we have the historical witness of the Early Church (ecclesia primitiva). Its witness is unanimous as to the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter (homologoumena). But as to the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, doubts, more or less strongly expressed, were entertained (antilegomena). Eusebius in his Church History lists the homologoumena and the antilegomena.2 The historical fact that the Early Church differentiated between the homologoumena and the antilegomena cannot be changed by a resolution of the later Church. Luther, too, abides by this judgment of the primitive Church; he says, appealing to Eusebius (Church History III, 25), that in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse “had a different reputation.” He finds much excellent instruction in the antilegomena, grants that the offensive passages may be explained acceptably by “glosses,” and will keep no one from appraising them as he sees fit. But he will not class them with the “right certain chief books of the New Testament.” As for himself, he will let the doubt entertained by the Early Church remain.3 Chemnitz denounced the action of the Roman Catholic Church in declaring the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the antilegomena of the New Testament a part of the canon of Scripture by a mere decree and in anathematizing all those who refused to accept the canon fixed in the Vulgate, as anti-Christian.4

Also the fathers of the Missouri Synod recognized the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena. They did, however, leave it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena, for they were divided in their opinion regarding, e.g., the Apocalypse. In the second volume of Lehre und Wehre (1856, p. 204 ff.) the question regarding the homologoumena and the antilegomena is thoroughly ventilated in the article entitled: “Is He Who does Not Receive or Regard as Canonical All Books Contained in the Collection of the New Testament to be Declared a Heretic or Dangerous False Teacher?” Walther writes:

    What induces us to discuss this question is the fact that Pastor Roebbelen in connection with the glosses on the Revelation of St. John published in the Lutheraner also stated that with Luther he does not regard the Apocalypse as canonical. This has, we are informed, given great offense in some quarters. Now, we do not agree with our dear brother Roebbelen on this point; we are convinced that this precious book, so rich in comfort for the Christians and the Church, belongs to the canon. Still, we believe that it is not fair — probably it is due to ignorance of the facts of the case — to stamp an otherwise unimpeachable theologian as a dangerous false teacher, who renders the very Word of God suspect, one who sincerely receives as canonical all homologoumena (universally accepted books), but who has his doubts as to the canonicity of one or the other of the antilegomena (disputed books). This would be thoroughly un-Lutheran. For our dear fathers in the faith, with hardly an exception till after the time of the Formula of Concord, regarded and declared all or at least some of the antilegomena as not belonging to the canon; and they did that not from hastiness or levity toward the Word of God, but, on the contrary, because they were very conscientious with regard to the Word of God. Luther’s opinions on the antilegomena are not a “blot” on our Church, but they rather bear witness how careful our Church once was in determining the standard and norm of our faith and life. The summary decrees of the Papists and the Reformed that all the antilegomena must be received as canonical by all Christians on pain of losing their salvation are so little a testimony for the high regard of these denominations for the Word of God that they rather demonstrate how easy it is for those to add something to the canon who hold that the Scriptures are to be interpreted either, in a blind collier’s faith, according to the whim of the Church (that is, of the Pope) or according to the principles of reason. It will therefore not be improper to submit here the testimony of our fathers, particularly of the 16th and the first half of the 17th century; not that we personally hold these opinions, but in order to show that doubts as to the canonicity of the disputed books were held also by men whose orthodoxy no Lutheran would dare to deny, and thus to clear a man like Luther of the suspicion that he had brazenly, in his subjective pleasure, passed judgment on books which had been received into the New Testament Canon.

Walther concludes his article with the words:

    If this question be treated in a Christian manner, if the poor laymen are not confused by a dishonest presentation of the real issue, by a partisan exploitation of a matter which the common people find it hard to grasp — which may easily be done here — the discussion of the question can only serve to arouse the Christians to a serious investigation and thus to deepen and strengthen their knowledge and their faith. If any periodical takes cognizance of this our discussion, we herewith state beforehand that we shall not deem any foolish babbling, parading in the guise of a defense, of God’s Word, worthy of an answer; but any pertinent ventilation of this important subject will receive our attention, even though it pronounce ever so sharp a verdict on our old teachers, Luther, Brenz, Chemnitz, Veit Dietrich, Conrad Dietrich, etc.

In this article, Walther quotes extensively from Chemnitz, who in his Examen Concilii Tridentini exposes, in clear and powerful language, the Antichristian and insane character of the above-mentioned papal decree with its appended anathema. Because this presentation is considered a “classic” even today, we here submit it in its salient points.5

    The third question is whether the Church of our day can make those Scriptures, regarding which there was doubt in the Early Church because of the contradiction of some, canonical, catholic, and equal to those of the first order. The Papists not only claim that they can do this, but they actually usurp this authority; they abolish entirely the necessary distinction which the primitive and early Church made between the canonical books and the apocryphal, or ecclesiastical, books. But the Church very manifestly does not have this authority; else it could for the same reason reject canonical books or canonize spurious books. For this entire matter hinges on the assured testimonies of that Church which existed in the days of the Apostles, which testimonies the Church that immediately followed preserved in trustworthy reports. … What an insolent audacity it is to decree: Though the primitive and the following early Church had its doubts regarding those books because of the contradiction of many churchmen, … hoc tamen non obstante we decree that these books must be received with the same certainty as of equal authority with those which have been always adjudged genuine. … But why, then, do they not impart this authority to the fables of Aesop or the true stories of Lucian? Not that I would compare those controverted books to the fables of Aesop (for with Cyprian and Jerome I assign them the honorable place which they have always held in the ancient Church), but by an epagwgh eis adunaton [by adducing the impossible] I want to show that the Church has not the power to make of spurious writings genuine ones; of genuine, spurious; of doubtful and uncertain, certain, canonical, and legitimate.

…

    Our question pertains to those books which are found together in the Vulgate edition of the Bible and which are read in the churches by the faithful. … Of the writings of the Old Testament the Book of Wisdom, Sirach, etc., are listed with the Apocrypha, as not being in the canon. Of the books of the New Testament these are mentioned by Eusebius in the Third Book, chapter 25, as not having had in the first and ancient Church sufficiently sure, firm, and consentient testimonies of their trustworthiness and authority: “The writings which are not regarded as indubitable, but against which there is contradiction, though they are known to many, are these: The Epistle of James, of Jude, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and the Third Epistle of John; the Apocalypse of John some reject, while others pronounce it one of the certain and incontestable Scriptures.” And in chapter 3 he says: “It is known that in the Roman congregation some rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting that its Pauline authorship has been disputed.”

…

    The reasons why there was doubt about these writings should be noted: 1) There were not found among the ancients sufficiently certain, firm, and consentient testimonies that these books were approved by the Apostles and commended to the churches. 2) It did not appear certain from the testimony of the primitive and ancient Church whether these books had been written by those under whose names they were issued, but it has been judged that they have been issued by others under the name of the Apostles. 3) Because some of the most ancient writers attributed some of these books to the Apostles, while others disputed this claim, this matter has been left in doubt, since it was not indubitably certain. … Over against these very manifest testimonies of antiquity the Council of Trent decreed: “If anyone receive not as sacred and canonical the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition … let him be anathema.” But whence do they bring proof and confirmation for this their decree against the testimony of antiquity? Do they now produce some unassailable and clear documents, taken from the testimony of the primitive, Apostolic, ancient Church, which show that these controverted books bear the same certainty and the like authority with the others about which there never was any doubt? By no means; nor can they do this. But they arrogate to themselves the power that the Pope with his prelates can impart, as Pighius states, to these and perhaps also to other books canonical authority, which they do not merit of themselves or because of their authors, and which they did not have at the time of the Apostles and the primitive Church. Why do they not openly state their case? They say, in effect: “Though it cannot be proved that those books were either written or approved by the Prophets or by the Apostles, and were received certainly and constantly by the primitive and ancient Church, yes, though the contrary is proved by the most evident testimonies of antiquity, which are clearer than the midday sun, hoc tamen non obstante we determine and decree that this is certainly to be believed; though no documents pertaining to this case have been produced by us, we assert that (if it please the gods) the plenitude of this Antichristian power lies buried in the shrine of the Pope’s heart.”

    They pronounce the anathema on all who do not receive the apocryphal books as of the same certainty and authority as the canonical. Cursed, then, will be Eusebius, Jerome, Origen, Melito, and the entire primitive Apostolic Church, from whose testimony is taken what we adduced above about these books.

    This entire dispute, then, resolves itself into the question whether it is certain and indubitable that these books are the divinely inspired Scriptures. The entire antiquity responds that this is not certain, but has been doubtful because of the contradiction of so many. The Tridentine arrogance, however, threatens with an anathema anyone who does not receive them as of equal certainty and authority with the rest of the books about which there has never been any doubt. Is it astonishing, then, that some popish parasites have contended that the Pope could institute new articles of faith, since here he does not shrink from fabricating a new canonical Scripture? There is no longer any doubt who it is that, sitting in the temple of God, exalts himself above everything that is called God, 2 Thess. 2.

    Does this mean that these books are simply to be rejected and condemned? We are by no means seeking this. Then of what use is this dispute? I answer: To make sure the rule of faith or sound doctrine in the Church. For the ancients held that the authority of the Church dogmas rests solely on the canonical books. It was held that only by the authority of the canonical books could those things be established about which any dispute arose. The rest of the books which Cyprian calls ecclesiastical, Jerome apocryphal, were to be read in the Church for the edification of the people, but not to prove the dogmas of the Church. … No dogma which does not have a certain and clear foundation in the canonical books dare be constructed from these books. Nothing that is in controversy may be proved from these books if there are no other proofs and confirmations in the canonical books. But what is said in these books must be explained and understood according to the analogy of what is clearly set down in the canonical books. There can be no doubt that this is the meaning of the ancient Church. But the Council of Trent will hear nothing of this necessary and most true distinction of the ancient Church, subverts and abolishes it, for the reason that (as my Andradius says) they do not want to be confined to these narrow limits; they do not want to be so destitute of all other helps that they must derive their faith solely from the canonical Scriptures. For the Tridentine Synod says that it makes canonical books out of the apocryphal books in order to show what testimonies and helps it intends to use in confirming doctrines and restoring morals.

Walther adds (Baier-Walther, I, 153): “The same position is taken by A. Osiander (d. 1617), Aeg. Hunnius, Hafenreffer, C. Dietrich, F. Balduin, Th. Thummius, and others.”

It has been stated that this distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena has been dropped by the later Lutheran dogmaticians. Philippi (Glaubenslehre I, 108) mentions particularly Gerhard, whom he pronounces the “most renowned dogmatician” of the Lutheran Church after Chemnitz. True, in one form or another the later dogmaticians state that the Church today (hodie) observes no distinction between the various books of the New Testament.6 As for Gerhard, he makes the statement that he believes the Apocalypse to be canonical. However, he adds this remark: “In the meantime, however, because there was at times doubt in the primitive Church on the part of some about the author of this book, we for this reason refer it to the canonical books of the second rank; not indeed detracting from its canonical authority, still not simply and in all respects classifying it with the rest of the canonical books about which there never was any doubt; and by the fairest right we demand that the interpretation of such a book in no manner conflict with the canonical books of the first rank.”7 This, however, as a matter of fact, amounts to the distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena. As we cannot speak in the doctrine of God of a Godhead of the second rank (as old and modern subordinationists indeed do), so we cannot, without a certain self-contradiction, speak of deutero-canonical writings in the doctrine of Holy Scripture, which are God’s inviolable Word.

Some have argued that since there are antilegomena, we cannot determine exactly the extent of the canon and hence cannot know exactly what is the principium cognoscendi and norma of the Christian doctrine, but such have got their accounts mixed. We know that the Church of the New Testament possesses a fixed and firm canon, with no uncertainty attaching to it. For when Christ asks us (John 8:31-32; 17:20; and Eph.2:20) to continue in His and His Apostles’ doctrine, He presupposes the continued existence and possession of this doctrinal basis.

In this connection the question has been asked whether the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena has any “sweeping dogmatical significance.” We for our part answer No, assuming that the meaning is that he who regards and treats the antilegomena as canonical thereby obtains more and other doctrines. On the one hand we observe the distinction made by the ancient Church between the writings of the New Testament; on the other hand we are convinced that the antilegomena, even when taken by themselves, neither contain false doctrine nor yet a doctrine which goes beyond the doctrine contained in the books that have the unanimous testimony of the ecclesia primitiva. We are convinced that Rome and certain sectarians misuse the Epistle of James when they make it the protector of their doctrine of work-righteousness. We must simply keep in mind that James is speaking of faith not insofar as it justifies before God, but insofar as we are, according to God’s will and ordinance, to evidence our faith to men, which can be done only by works. James is addressing not so much the new man as the old man in the Christian. And the Apocalypse does not contain an inkling of that chiliasm with which old and modern chiliasts have disturbed and plagued the Church. …

All this talk about the number of the Christian doctrines increasing with the number of the Biblical books is nonsense. It has been correctly pointed out that the single Gospel according to Matthew contains the entire Christian doctrine and that missionaries among the heathen for years got along, or rather had to get along, with a translation of this one Gospel and from it taught all the articles of the Christian faith. Anyone can convince himself that the Gospel according to Matthew contains the revelation of all doctrines that our Lutheran Church confesses in the Book of Concord. At the same time we thank the Lord for the fuller exposition of the saving doctrine which He gave us in the remaining books of the New Testament. What was written of the Old Testament: “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4), applies also to the New Testament, and we praise God’s grace and providence in having the saving doctrine recorded for us by so many divinely appointed witnesses. Having this manifold testimony, the Christians dwell “as in a paradise,” and their assurance is mightily strengthened. Paul writes to the Philippians (3:1): “To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.”

ENDNOTES

1. Baier-Walther, I, 149. Gerhard, Loci (locus “De Scriptura Sacra,” § 75 sqq.), furnishes much material on the refusal of the early Christian Church to receive the Apocrypha into the canon. Cf. Keil, Einleitung, § 216; H. L. Strack, R. E., 2d ed., VII, 442 ff.

2. Church History III, 25. On the Epistles of James and Jude particularly, II, 23. He reports, VI, 25, on the canon of Origen and the latter’s opinion of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cp. for further detail Baier-Walther, I, 150, note b. Baier says: “It can certainly not be denied that in the ancient Church there was so much doubt as to their writers that they were denied the authority proper to inspired books.” Cp. the comprehensive article “Kanon des Neuen Testaments,” by Theodor Zahn, in R. E., 3d ed., IX, 768-796.

3. See Luther’s prefaces to the epistles mentioned, St. L. XIV: 126-139. On the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, Luther says: “They are not doctrinal epistles, but examples of love and faith and breathe a truly Apostolic spirit,” loc. cit., p. 126 f.

4. Tridentinum, Sess. IV: “But if anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books [the Old Testament plus the Apocrypha, the New Testament, including the antilegomena] entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition … let him be anathema.”

5. Examen, 1667, p. 48 sqq. Walther gave a German translation of it, op. cit., pp. 205-210. It is given in the original in Baier-Walther, I, 150 sqq.

6. Thus Baier, I, 150, 153.

7. Disputatt. Theologic., Ienae, 1655, p. 1015; quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 153.

It’s time to unveil the last of our weekly columns, “Franz Friday,” featuring selections from the writings of Franz August Otto Pieper. We begin this week with one of his sermons, “Trembling at God’s Word,” given as an opening address for the new school term in 1930.

We read in the last chapter of the prophet Isaiah: “But on this one will I look:  On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My Word.”  These words, which the prophet speaks in God’s name and by His command, describe true Godliness in contrast to the outward temple service of the apostate Jewish people.  True Godliness in consists in humble recognition of sin and in Holy fear before God’s majestic Word.  This is how it should be with each Christian, but especially with each theologian.  Luther was right when he said that all true theology can be described as trembling before God’s Word.  At the time of the reformation of the Church, God, by Luther’s work once again established the trembling before God’s Word instead of before the authority of the pope, as was prophesied in Revelation 14:7.  The counter reformation of the papal church consisted in fortifying the pseudo-authority of the pope.  The Council of Trent is proof of this.  The Reformed counter-reformation consisted and consists in this – that in its deviation from the Lutheran church it presents a building built according to the laws of human reason.  The modern Lutheran counter-reformation consisted and consists in this – by the denial of the inspiration of Holy Scripture, on principle, drives out trembling at God’s Word and makes God’s Word and object of criticism.

Students at Concordia, at our St. Louis Concordia you will be instructed in the theology which consists in a humble spirit and in trembling at God’s Word.  At the beginning of this new year of studies, I will briefly answer the question:

What is included in trembling at God’s Word?

First, is the knowledge that the Holy Scripture is God’s own and infallible Word.  And this is not a “theological deduction” but a direct doctrine of Holy Scripture.  When the Savior says “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He accepts the guarantee that the Scripture is God’s Word in each of its words because the context of Jesus’ statement concerns the use of one word of Scripture, the word, “gods” in Psalm 82.  Furthermore, the Savior says in His high priestly prayer, John, 17, about His apostles, “I have given them Your word,” and right away after that He adds that all believers until the last day will believe in Him “Through   their  word.”  Furthermore:  As is known, Holy Scripture is not made up of thoughts floating in the air but of words, of written words.  And of these written words, Christ’s apostle, St. Paul, Testifies:  “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16).  In short, it is not just a human or theological conclusion but a direct declaration of Scripture:  The Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament is God’s own Word and therefore infallible.  All who regard it otherwise, all who with modern Lutheran theology do not want to “identify” the Holy Scripture with God’s Word, do not tremble at God’s Word, but want to become critics of God’s Word.  May God keep us and our brothers and sisters in the faith and confession from the blasphemous error which overthrows the foundation of faith.

Trembling at God’s Word includes, secondly, the knowledge of what God’s Word teaches.  Without this knowledge the zeal for God’s Word would be zeal with folly.  Therefore, St. Paul exhorts His faithful son Timothy not just to take heed to himself but also to the doctrine:  “For in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.”  And, in fact, the necessary knowledge refers to the entire doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine in all its articles.  Christ’s commission to teach until the end of the world is quite unmistakable:  “Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.”  Therefore, the apostle Paul also says when he gives himself as an example to the pastors of Ephesus:  “For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.”

Students of Concordia!  To acquire the entire Christian doctrine in all articles, demands diligence, great diligence, on the part of the students of theology.  Lack of diligence in this area would not be trembling at God’s Word but would reveal the opposite, disdain.  Trembling at God’s Word also includes what the apostle Paul reminds his dear Timothy:  “Take heed to yourself,” that is, to your Christian walk and life in sincere fear of God.  Otherwise the Holy Spirit, who dwells in you, is grieved and God’s Word is blasphemed among the unbelievers.

Third, trembling at God’s Word includes that we in God’s Church recognize that nothing is authoritative for doctrine except God’s Word.  In our time the fever of church union rages, the spirit which fosters the idea that the various directions in the church are equally valid, the spirit which wants union without unity in the doctrine of God’s Word.  That is not trembling at God’s Word.  God’s Word demands that it alone rules in the Church of God.  That is why God gave His Word to His Church.  The Church should only speak what comes from the mouth of God.  God’s Word should be the only source and norm of Church doctrine.  The Savior exhorts, “If you abide in My Word, you are my disciples indeed and you shall know the truth” (John 8:31)  Therefore the apostle Peter also exhorts:  “If you speak” – namely in the Church of God – “Say what God says”

(I Peter 4:11).  And when spirits, which did not want to remain with the doctrine of the apostle, stirred in the congregation at Ephesus, the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy that he should order these spirits to teach nothing different.  Holding to another teaching and holding to another opinion have no right to exist in the Christian Church.  Whoever allows the word of man to be placed next to the Word of God, whoever wants to extend the hand of fellowship, as brothers in the faith, with those who deviate from God’s Word, has reason to examine himself to see if he earnestly regards God’s Word as God’s Word.

We so-called Missourians and confessional brothers have, until now, by God’s grace, kept the right path in regard to church union.  Of course we have earnestly entered into “free-conferences” – that is doctrinal discussions to establish doctrinal unity where it does not yet exist.  But we only have fellowship as brothers in the faith with those who confess the pure doctrine of Christ as the apostle John demands in his second epistle and which is demanded in the whole Scripture of Old and New Testament.

We are praised for this one part, the smaller one, but greatly blamed by the other, larger part.  We must count on the possibility that we will become more isolated than ever before.  How will it go for us?  We know exactly.  We read from the prophet Jeremiah”  “they will fight against you,’ says the Lord, ‘To deliver you.’”(1:19).  We are victorious when we, by God’s grace, continue to tremble at God’s Word.  Those trying to isolate us gain the victory, can penetrate in the front, flanks and center, if we, by our own fault stop trembling at God’s Word.  May God in grace grant that we continue to tremble at His Word!  Amen.