The Witness of History for Scripture (Homologoumena and Antilegomena), pt. 2
…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.
from Francis Pieper, “Christian Dogmatics,” Vol. I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], pp. 330-38.
