<page 11> [179/1]
As the subject of the doctrinal discussion, the Synod first had before it the theses of Prof. C. F. W. Walther: The Ev. Lutheran Church, the True Visible Church of God on Earth. * St. Louis, Mo. 1867. Following the discussions of the Central District [Part EC11], the Synod began where that had left off, namely at the 18th Thesis, litt. 6.
———
*) The reader will do well to purchase this book himself and read the pertinent ... (cut off) [From 1992 CPH English: "The reader will benefit by purchasing this book and reading the pertinent sections. It is available from M. C. Barthel, 631 pp. Fourth St., St. Louis, Mo. Price: 50 cents."]
Thesis XVIII.
The Lutheran Church gives every teaching of the Word of God the position and meaning that it has in God's Word itself:
C. The Lutheran Church makes a strict distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles contained in Scripture, op. cit. p. 114; [Mueller, p. 99]
1st Scriptural Proof.
Meaning of 1 Cor. 3:11-15
1 Cor. 3:11-15:
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [12] Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; [13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
It has been remarked on this:
Here the apostle clearly shows that there is indeed a difference among the doctrines of Holy Scripture, for some form the foundation, some rest on this foundation, some form the roof, and some are for the other completion and adornment of this house; in order to build a man on Christ, the Rock, one must, as it were, build a doctrinal edifice in him through teaching, and by doing this and the man adhering to these teachings, a building of faith is also erected in his heart; if the body of doctrine is false, the edifice of faith will also be false, deficient and defective.
So when the apostle speaks of wood, hay [179/2] and stubble, which may burn, but whose inventors and followers can still be saved, he indicates that he is speaking of those who, in addition to their errors, still hold Christ as the foundation of faith, that is, of such teachers and Christians who otherwise teach and profess the pure doctrine. The names "wood, hay and stubble" are not intended to indicate the different values of erroneous doctrines, but rather the vain, vain and transitory nature of such human teachings.
Just as it is not enough to build a house on a good foundation, but one must also see to it that it is built on good material, otherwise it cannot last; one must also build and complete it more and more in the individual parts, so that neither fire, wind and weather from inside nor outside spoil and destroy it, so it is not enough to found a soul on the right foundation rock, Christ, which happens through the teaching of Christ and through faith in Christ; but it must also be built up and strengthened more and more from this foundation, Christ, which happens by taking away the erroneous ideas that dwell in the human heart, and by growing in ever greater knowledge of the whole counsel of salvation, of all the individual revealed truths, as well as by the faith thereby generated, nourished and strengthened.
Fundamental dogma, or what everyone needs to know in order to stand in faith.
If one asks what is the least that man must know in order to be able to come to saving faith, that is, what is the doctrinal basis for the house of faith to rest on the irrefutable rock, Christ, Quenstedt gives the following summary:
"God, one in essence, <page 12> triune in person, out of immeasurable love towards the fallen human race, forgives the sins of every sinful person who recognizes his sins, through and for the sake of Christ the mediator and his merit, which is proclaimed in the Word and grasped in faith, imputes the righteousness of Christ and gives eternal life."
Suppose one were a missionary among the Indians, who had not yet been taught more than this, and they believed it simple-mindedly and were suddenly massacred by other Indians, they would undoubtedly be saved, even if they knew nothing of baptism, of the Lord's Supper, of original sin, of the inspiration of the Scriptures, of the angels, etc. Of course, if one had time and space, one would have to be a faithful steward and try to teach them these and all the other doctrines of Holy Scripture, but they would be held against the foundation itself to count only for silver, gold and precious stones. [180/1]
What wood, hay and stubble are.
But it is quite different if one has laid the right foundation of the above-mentioned necessary auxiliary truths, but instead of building on them with further revealed truths, now begins to pass off all kinds of human ideas, views and opinions for doctrines of faith, which are the wood, hay and stubble of which Paul speaks. According to the apostle's testimony, such human works will not stand the test of time, but will be burned up in the fire of temptation, in the agony of death and in the last judgment, and the one who has built them will suffer loss, for he has spent his time and labor in vain.
A prime example of this is St. Bernard, who was one of the most pious monks and undoubtedly held to the fundamental truths, but he built on them wood, hay and stubble, while he was highly zealous for the papacy, the celibate life and monasticism; But when he lay on his deathbed, he looked at his work with different eyes in the fire of death, he had to confess to himself that his teachings were not founded in God's word, that therefore God's pleasure did not rest on his work, he had suffered great damage, he had worked in vain, hence his "perdite vixi" i.e. I have lived in vain. I have lived in vain.
Also such doctrines as these: whether a new world will take place on the last day, or only a renewal of the world; whether the soul of man is propagated by creatio or traductio, whether the Virgin Mary has always remained a virgin, etc., become wood, hay and stubble, by the way, if someone emphasizes them one-sidedly and condemns the doctrine of the Spirit as heresy.
First testimony. Ibid. p. 114 [Mueller, pp. 99-100].
Which are fundamentally false doctrines.
It reads: "Apology:
“This church is properly, as Paul says, a ‘piller of truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15), for it retains the pure Gospel, the true foundation (1 Cor. 3:11). And as Paul says: ‘Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor. 3:11); on this foundation therefore Christians are built. And although in the multitude that is built upon the true foundation, that is, Christ and faith, there are many weak ones, who build upon this foundation straw and hay, that is, some human thoughts and opinions, by which, however, they do not overthrow or reject Christ the Foundation, they nevertheless are Christians, and such failings are forgiven them; they perhaps will also be enlightened and better instructed. Thus we see that also the fathers now and then built straw and hay upon the foundation, though thereby they did not subvert the foundation. But many articles of our opponents overthrow the true foundation: the knowledge of Christ and faith; for they reject and condemn the high and greatest article, as when we say that we obtain forgiveness of sin through Christ, solely [180/2] by faith and without all works. In opposition to this they teach faith in our works, by which to earn forgiveness of sins, and they put in place of Christ their works, orders, Masses, just as also the Jews, heathen, and Turks desire to be saved by their works. Again they teach that the sacraments render pious ex opere operato (‘by the mere performance’), without faith. But whoever does not regard faith as necessary has already lost Christ. Again, they inaugurate the veneration of the saints and call upon them as mediators in place of Christ.” [Arts. VII and VIII; cf. Triglotta, p. 233]
Here our symbols, it was noted, show what are fundamentally false doctrines, namely, for example, when the Baptists reject the article “that by faith alone, without works, we obtain forgiveness of sins through Christ." Furthermore, when one teaches that one can obtain forgiveness of sins through works, or when one declares such works as the Mass and monastic orders to be salvific instead of Christ's work, when one believes that the sacraments save (ex opere operato), when one teaches to worship the saints.
<page 13>
Error of the Methodists.
A fundamental error is any error which, if carried out consistently, overthrows Christ's merit and makes it superfluous. Thus, for example, the Methodists lead man into a subtle workaholism, in that they do not want to allow man to access Christ, the Savior of sinners, because he has made himself worthy of it through his own preparation, through prayer and through a special measure of penitential pain and other good works, so that man ultimately does not have to base himself on Christ's merit but rather on his own piety.
But it is not to be overlooked that many a false doctrine in which a person is caught up is, in theory, bound to overthrow the foundation, whereas in practice it does not happen, but this must not lead us to the dangerous opinion, that an error is not as dangerous to the soul as is usually said, for the fact that the foundation of faith is not overturned in such a person is not due to the harmlessness of the false doctrine, but to a fortunate inconsistency in which the trend still stands; In such a case, even such a false doctrine will only be wood, hay and stubble to man, and temperance fanaticism in this country is also to be counted as such; as well as the error of some Christians in Rome in St. Paul's time, who still held one day higher than the other. [181/1]
False teaching of the Puritans on Sunday.
On the other hand, the present doctrine of the Puritans concerning Sunday, if carried out consistently, is undoubtedly disastrous, because it leads us back into Judaism and takes us captive under the old statutes. But Christianity consists precisely in this, that we know and believe that through Christ we are freed from the compulsion and curse of the Law, and that the ceremonial law no longer concerns us at all. Col. 2:16. Whoever teaches in this way, that a person remains under the authority of the Law and thus under its curse, puts Christ out of his sight and deprives him of soul and salvation, so it happens that the very legal preachers, who often work with great zeal and seem to awaken so many to Christian life, drag baptized people to hell, because they hide Christ from their eyes and thus pull all reason for salvation from under their feet. Gal. 3:10 ff.
Second testimony. Ibid. S. 115.
Error of the syncretists.
"Large Catechism: At first —
“In the first place, the Creed has hitherto been divided into twelve articles, although, if all points which are written in the Scriptures and which belong to the Creed were to be distinctly set forth, there would be far more articles, nor could they all be clearly expressed in so few words.” [Part II, par. 5; Mueller, p. 100; Triglotta p. 679]
It was remarked that this testimony was given because the syncretists (unionists) claimed that whoever accepted the Apostles’ Creed accepted all the Christian articles of faith and could also be united with him. On the other hand, one must confess with Luther and the Fathers that not all articles of faith are contained in this symbol, e.g. the article of the inspiration of Holy Scripture, of original sin, of the sacraments.
Third witness. Ibid. S. 115.
Primary and secondary fundamental articles of faith and non-fundamental articles.
This is from Quenstedt and reads thus:
“A foundation, generally speaking, is that which in every building is primary, spread under the whole building, and not supported by anything else. The foundation of faith therefore is that which serves faith and so all of Christendom as a substratum, like a house to be erected and preserved. And since ‘foundation’ at times means as much as ‘cause,’ therefore a fundamental article is a dogma so constituted that it causes and establishes faith and eternal salvation or that it presents some cause of faith and salvation. Dr. Hunnius and others set up a <page 14> threefold foundation of faith: the essential, the instrumental, and the dogmatical. The [181/2] essential foundation is everything in which man places his trust and of whose goodness he expects eternal salvation; or it is the true object of faith, namely, God, who promises and grants to man in His appointed time saving grace, and Christ, who by His merit causes that divine grace to be imparted to men after their sins have been blotted out and righteousness has been recovered; or, expressed more briefly, the Triune God who is apprehended by faith in Christ the Mediator. The instrumental foundation is the Word of God, which, like the seed by which Christians are born again (1 Peter 1:23), is called the foundation inasmuch as it is the means that engenders faith, and is the object of the doctrine, serving faith as its substratum, and so as its foundation (Eph. 2:20-21). The dogmatical foundation is described by Dr. Hunnius as that primary part of the heavenly doctrine which belongs to no other dogma, but is revealed on its own account. To this all other dogmas belong, as revealed because of it; and from it, as from its adequate and immediate cause, faith has its existence.
“Hence, heresy is not every error opposed to the Word of God, but one which shakes and overthrows the very foundation of faith, whether that be the essential foundation, the proper object of faith, or the instrumental, the Word of God as the object and means of faith, or the dogmatical, the very doctrine by which faith is obtained and supported so that when this is not known, or is denied, faith cannot be secured, exist, or be preserved. Since the fundamental dogmas are not of the same nature, but some are related to the creation of faith and the obtaining and the promoting of salvation in a close, others in a closer, and again others in a closest way, the object of a fundamental article is the credendum [the doctrine is to be believed], no matter whether it is close, closer, or closest to the foundation of faith. The more closely and directly any doctrine concerns and causes the foundation, namely, faith and salvation, so much more, and so much more properly, it must be called and regarded as fundamental. .. .
“The fundamental articles are divided into primary and secondary fundamentals. Primary fundamental articles are those without whose knowledge no one can obtain eternal salvation, or those which dare not be ignored without endangering the foundation of faith and incurring the loss of salvation. (Some call these absolutely fundamental, because the very ignorance of them already condemns.) Secondary fundamental articles are those of which one may be ignorant without injury to the foundation of faith, but which nevertheless one must not deny, much less attack.. . . The difference between the two consists in this, that some cannot be unknown without loss of faith and salvation, as, for example, that God had mercy upon all men who had fallen into sin, and so forth. Others indeed may be unknown to men without injury to their faith, yet they dare not be denied without harming the faith, as, for example, that God is infinite, immense, immutable; that [182/1] God’s name ‘Jehovah’ is incommunicable; that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other by certain characteristics, and the like. All these truths may be unknown to a person without injury to his faith and the loss of his salvation, because, despite this ignorance, faith in the promising God and the redeeming Christ remains intact. Many ordinary Christians never consider these and other truths and are nevertheless not harmed in their faith and salvation. However, if any one would deny that God is infinite, immense, immutable, he would make shipwreck of his faith because he would accuse the Spirit of Truth of lies, change God into an idol, rob Him of His due honor, and so sin grievously against Him. . . . “Nonfundamental articles are those which may be unknown or even denied without overthrowing the foundation of faith. . . . Among such non-fundamental articles or such as many be unknown without injury to one’s faith and even be denied, Dr. Hunnius enumerates the doctrine of the eternal reprobation of certain angels, the immortality of man before the Fall, the Antichrist, the unpardonable nature of the sin against the Holy Ghost, of Christian freedom in the use of ceremonies, and the like. If these are unknown or even denied, it does not do injury per se since no cause of faith, or a fundamental dogma, is abrogated by denying them.” (Theol. didactico-polem., part I, ch. 5, sec. 1, fol. 350-52)
Quenstedt divides the fundamental articles into primary and secondary; the former are those without the knowledge of which no one can be saved, e.g. that Christ has redeemed all men; the secondary, however, are those about which one may be ignorant without prejudice to the ground of faith, but which, if known, cannot be denied, much less disputed, without overturning the foundation, e.g. that God is infinite, omnipresent, etc. Finally, there are also non-fundamental articles of faith, i.e. those which are both unknown and can be denied without thereby overturning the foundation, e.g. the doctrine of the immortality of man before the fall, of the Antichrist, etc.
Error of the Reformed concerning the Lord's Supper.
This distinction is very important because it shows us how we should view those who are in error. For example, a Reformed person who is otherwise a believer may, despite his error that Christ could not be in the Lord's Supper because he had ascended to heaven, by a fortunate coincidence firmly believe that God became man in Christ to redeem us, although with his false doctrine of the Lord's Supper he actually denies the incarnation of God himself, for how can Christ be true God if he is not also omnipresent after humanity? Nevertheless, there are [182/2] undoubtedly many Reformed people, even preachers among them, who deny the first and yet believe the second.
It was remarked that it was abusive for Hunnius to describe the doctrine of Antichrist as one that could be denied, while Heshusius said that anyone who did not hate the pope as the Antichrist and the man of sin with all his soul had never yet acquired a taste for piety.
To this was answered:
It was not Hunnius's intention to show what one must believe at all, for it goes without saying that Christians believe everything that is written in the Scriptures, but he wants to show here which articles are necessary to kindle saving faith in the heart of man, and which are not, and here he shows that the doctrine of Antichrist does not stand in a logical relationship to the dogmatic foundation, so that even he who does not know it or denies it in ignorance does not yet overthrow the foundation of faith, even though he is caught up in error. It is a different matter, however, if a person knows that this teaching is revealed in God's Word and yet denies it, then he is in great danger, for although he does not thereby overturn the dogmatic foundation, he nevertheless shakes the instrumental foundation of faith, the Word of God itself, makes it uncertain and rejects it, but then fills everything with it. So it all depends on the reason why someone denies that the pope is the Antichrist; if he denies it because he does not think he can recognize it from God's Word, it does him no harm; but if he denies it even though he sees that according to God's Word the pope is the Antichrist, then he ceases to be a Christian.
Fourth testimony.
Ibid. p. 117. [Mueller, pp. 102-103]
It reads: Quenstedt:
“The following are dogmas of faith which all men must of necessity believe: God is one in essence, but three in person. Out of immeasurable love toward the fallen human race He forgives to every sinner who acknowledges his sins, through and for the sake of Christ the Mediator and His merit, published in the divine Word and apprehended by faith, his sins, imputing to him Christ’s righteousness and granting him freely eternal life.. . . After that there are other articles of faith, which are not absolutely fundamental or the cause of salvation, but which belong to the foundation so that their denial condemns and makes the denier a heretic, as, for example, the doctrines of creation, eternal election, the church, the sacraments, and the like. There are, moreover, articles of faith in a lesser degree which Scripture sets forth to be believed, but without loss of salvation. Their denial does not per se offend against or overthrow a fundamental article, but they involve conclusions that are lacking in clarity. The denial of these makes one a schismatic, as for example, that sin is not the substance of man, that predestination is not universal, and so forth. Finally there are minor [183/1] questions related to fa/th, which scholars treat when considering difficult Scripture passages.” (Ibid., foI. 355)
Since the first part of what a person absolutely needs to know in order to come to faith was already discussed in detail last year and also in the above, <page 15> this time more attention was paid to the second part of this testimony, where Quenstedt discusses
Non-fundamental articles.
He shows that there are also articles of faith which are so to a lesser degree, the denial of which makes one a schismatic, but not in itself, but only in consequence, overturns a fundamental article of faith and thus makes one a heretic. To this belongs, for example, the dogma of creation. It was now asked in what sense this article would be cited here, and the answer was given: Quenstedt is concerned here with what truths a spirit and mind must accept in order to attain saving faith, i.e. with theory; but obviously the doctrine of creation in the detail as told by Moses does not belong to it. But anyone who would deny it would be a heretic and damned, for he would be overturning the foundation of the source of salvation, the Word of God. It is the same with the doctrine of the election of grace. If someone denies that God has chosen him from eternity, he also denies that God is eternal, for all thoughts and thoughts in God are eternal. But if someone does not come to complete clarity in his consciousness about this, he can stand in the right faith and be saved even without this teaching. It is quite similar with the doctrine of the church, the sacraments and so on. Just think how things would look in our own churches if we were to examine them, how many rationalist, Methodist, Baptist and papist errors would still come to light, even among Christians whose righteous faith we have no reason to doubt.
von Rohr's error.
It was said that one of the pastors who held the same opinion as Pastor von Rohr, and to whom it had been claimed that people outside the orthodox church could also be saved, replied that this was impossible because the Holy Spirit had to work the full knowledge of the truth in the believers, otherwise he would not be the Spirit who leads into all truth.
From this, it was remarked, one could see where the false doctrine of the Church was leading, where would the Church have been before the Reformation? It is also natural to distinguish between absolute perfection in knowledge and perfection in its own way, only the latter takes place in this life.
Flacius’s error.
Question: Did Flacius' error "original sin is the substance of man" make him a heretic? [183/2] Answer, no, but a schismatic, i.e. one who caused a schism in the Church.
Huber's error.
Likewise, Huber is to be regarded as a schismatic who taught that election by grace is universal. If a person willfully sins and is then lost, the fault is not that he is not elected, but that he loses the fruit of the election of grace. According to this, God would have decided something in eternity that he could not carry out in time. For this heresy Huber was expelled from Wittenberg as one who could not be tolerated among the teachers of the orthodox church, but he was not regarded as a sectarian, because this denial of the particular (only partial) election of grace does not in itself, but by virtue of a conclusion that is not exactly obvious, offend against a fundamental article of faith and overturns it.
<page 16>
Fifth testimony.
Ibid. p. 118. [Mueller, pp. 103-104]
What secondary fundamental articles are.
"Baier: the secondary fundamental articles - the properties apart."
“Secondary fundamental articles are commonly described as parts of the Christian doctrine of which anyone may be ignorant without endangering the foundation of his faith, but which nevertheless dare not be denied without injuring it. . . . Whoever denies a secondary fundamental article in such a way that he at the same time can and does see that with its denial logically there is subverted a fundamental article of faith and therefore the foundation of faith, he by his denial is not only opposed indirectly to the foundations of faith, but also overthrows by his error, resulting from his denial, the foundation of faith directly and brings it about that faith cannot be created or exist in him. . . . Although usually there is no advanced knowledge (of a secondary fundamental article) among ordinary Christians, nevertheless its denial cannot coexist with the faith and the salvation of him who denies it, unless he is extraordinarily simple-minded and lacking in insight, when drawing the conclusion by which his denial is logically opposed to the foundation of faith, and he is so minded that he shrinks from every error which directly goes against the foundation of faith, and he is ready to be better instructed. For since the denial of a secondary article is opposed to the foundation of faith only by way of conclusion, and he who accepts the denial in simple- mindedness does so without understanding the conclusion, therefore in a person so constituted such a denial may exist together with the foundation.
“Again, since an advanced knowledge of the article that is denied is not absolutely necessary for the creation of faith and the obtaining of salvation, therefore its denial, should it stem from sheer simple-mindedness or ignorance, can coexist with the knowledge of what [184/1] ever else belongs to the foundation, inasmuch as this is necessary for the creation of faith and the knowledge of salvation; for in that case neither faith nor salvation is necessarily destroyed or hindered. With this agrees what the sainted Huelsemann in his Irreconcilable Calvinism declares axiomatically on page 432: ‘Not every dogma which according to its nature gives or takes something that necessarily serves faith either as a pre supposition or a consequence effects the same in every human heart’; and while reminding (the reader of the fact) that the question concerns the insight into conclusions, he judges that one must distinguish between those who are misled and are open to conviction, and the deceivers and malicious errorists. He then explains this by examples from the article of the communication of attributes.” (Compend. theol. posit., Proleg.; I, par. 33)
Remarks.
The secondary fundamental articles are those parts of Christian doctrine with which one may be unfamiliar, but which cannot be denied without prejudice to the foundation of salvation.
It was asked here:
Can one who knows nothing of original sin have the right faith?
Answer:
Yes, for this doctrine does not belong to the concept and essence of true faith; Paul asks the jailer in answer to the question: "Dear Lord, what must I do to be saved?": "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you and your household will be saved." Acts 16:31 It is enough for a man to consider himself a poor lost sinner; only the denial of original sin would be harmful, and that only if one were to accept the conclusion.
Reformed error about the Lord's Supper.
Another example: If one were to hold that the man Christ is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, he could certainly not believe that God truly became man, but a Reformed [Christian] who therefore does not believe that Christ's body and blood are present in the Lord's Supper, because according to his humanity he dwells in heaven, may nevertheless believe that Christ is true God and his Savior and Redeemer, if he does not see the consequence or necessary conclusion that, according to his false doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Christ is not in fact omnipresent, and therefore the man Christ is not true God.
Judgment on some recent theologians.
It was remarked that it was frightening to think that, according to Baier's testimony, all such men as Calvin, von Hoffman, Kahnis, and Hengstenberg, who undoubtedly denied the latter two fundamental articles with full awareness, were condemned.
To this it is replied: [184/2]
Where it is a matter of fundamental articles of faith, it is reasonable to refrain from judging their personal state of faith and soul, although their false doctrine must be rejected and condemned. Only if one denies the foundation, primary articles of faith, then I can judge and condemn, indeed know that they will not be saved, for whoever does not accept Christ as the Savior is lost. Even a learned man, like Hengstenberg, can be as simple-minded in his heart as an unlearned man; it is often hard to believe how prejudices, living conditions in which one has grown up, sometimes even mischievousness, which still unconsciously clings to one, can prevent a person from seeing and believing what is right. It is therefore not for us to judge persons or hearts, for here God has not yet revealed his judgment, but where someone not only does not know but even denies primary fundamental articles, God has revealed his judgment, and we can and should also judge and reject. 1 Sam. 15:26. So do our fathers in the Book of Concord.
It was remarked that, since German theologians are not in the habit of sending theological speculations into the world, it may be assumed that the heresies they profess in them are mostly only a matter of mere habit. The reply to this was that one should not want to be more far-sighted and merciful than the good Lord.
Kahnis.
Kahnis, for example, evidently overturns the foundation, for he denies the eternal <page 17> deity of Christ, saying that Christ is a being subordinate to God and has not existed from eternity. A man who has such a confession no longer rests on the foundation and is therefore no longer a Christian. These are Arian heresies, which were already publicly condemned in the fourth century in the Athanasian Creed.
Necessary caution in judging false believers.
It should also be noted that in the above we are not making the acceptance of the secondary fundamental articles the criterion (unmistakable mark) of true Christianity, but of orthodoxy. One must beware of going astray on both sides, of being too quick to judge as saved or condemned. Whoever believes that something besides Christ is necessary for salvation attacks the doctrine of justification, denies the core and star of the Christian faith, rejects the foundation and cornerstone of salvation, namely Christ. But this is what all those do who deny Christianity to someone merely because he errs in a secondary fundamental article. So did Grabau, among others. And whoever, on the other hand, [185/1] still counts among those who are saved those who reject primary fundamental articles, i.e. the reason, also overturns the doctrine of justification. But it is no small thing to rob the world of its Savior in this way. Christ says: If you do not believe that it is I, you will die in your sins. John 8:24 He who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 1 John 5:12.
Sixth testimony.
Ibid. p. 119. [Mueller, pp. 104-105]
Which is an article of faith.
Gerhard:
“Since those things which Scripture sets before us to believe are not equal in nature, but some things are directly and per se related to faith, while others are so only in a certain degree and respect, as are, for example, the descriptions of the historical deeds of the saints, therefore not all things, to speak properly and accurately, which Scripture sets forth for us to believe must be regarded as articles of faith, but only those teachings whose knowledge is necessary for salvation. Even among these articles of faith there is a difference, for some are fundamental and essential, as, for example, the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, while others are less essential, as those that relate to the former and are subordinate to them. . . . Thomas37 thus writes: ‘That by which a person is saved is per se the object of faith; contingently and secondarily, every thing [is the object of faith] that Scripture sets forth related to the object (of faith) as, for example, that David is the son of Jesse. Hence, so far as the credendum [the matter to be believed] is concerned, a person is held to believe all things that are articles of faith explicitly. With respect to other matters pertaining to the credendum it suffices to believe implicitly, or to be in such a frame of mind that one is ready to believe all things set forth in Scripture.’ Had the Jesuits observed this teaching of their master at the Colloquy at Ratisbon, they would not have declared that it is an article of faith to believe that the dog of Tobit wagged its tail.” (Loci theol. De justificatione, par. 128)
It has been remarked that when Gerhard says here: "Therefore not everything that is presented in Holy Scripture is to be regarded as an article of faith. Therefore, not everything that is presented in Holy Scripture is to be regarded as an article of faith, but only those dogmas whose knowledge is necessary for salvation," it is clear from this what is actually an article of faith, namely, not every object of faith, but such a doctrine that belongs to the whole structure of the building of faith in such a way that the building would not be complete if this doctrine were missing. Article means a joint or member which is organically connected with other members. [185/2]
A distinction must be made between parts and articles of doctrine.
For example, if one loses a finger or an arm, the whole body is mutilated, but if one expels mucus or any other impurity from the body, the body is not crippled because it is not organically connected with it.
Thus the pews in this house are not absolutely necessary for the completeness of the church building, but the walls are, and if one were taken away, the building would soon collapse. Thus there are many things in Scripture that do not necessarily belong in the doctrinal building, e.g. the doctrine that David is the son of Jesse. Even if someone did not know this doctrine or denied it, he could still stand in the true faith. But these doctrines are not therefore unnecessary; on the contrary, they can be very necessary and useful, for example, this very doctrine when it is a matter of proving to a Jew that Christ is from the tribe of Judah and the rod from the <page 18> tribe of Jesse and the fruit from a branch of his root, as prophesied in Isaiah 11.
A distinction must therefore be made between parts and members or articles of faith. The latter are organically connected, like the members of a body through which the same blood and sap flow. "If the Jesuits had heeded this teaching of their master in the Regensburg Colloquium, they would not have broken out into the statement that it was an article of faith that Tobias' dog had wagged its tail."
Copernican system.
It was asked whether it should be considered an article of faith that Joshua 10:12-14 shows that the sun revolves around the earth, and whether the Copernican system should therefore be rejected.
Answer:
This is a part, not an article of the doctrinal system. If anyone cannot see that the Holy Scriptures teach this in this and other places. But he who believes that the author of the book of Joshua intended to write how the sun's course was, but was himself in error, makes the foundation of all doctrines of faith, the Holy Scriptures themselves, uncertain, and attacks the very foundation of all doctrines of faith. Scripture itself, and thus attacks the reason. But he who thinks that Joshua speaks optically, as the Copernicans do when they say: the sun rises and the sun sets, cannot therefore be condemned by him.
The question arose again: could one admit that the Bible uses optical language?
Answer:
Because this doctrine, whether the sun goes around the earth or the earth around the sun, is not an article of faith, but at most only an object of faith, a part of the doctrinal structure of Holy Scripture, one must from this point of view, because such a (optical) way of speaking is unworthy of God, in that he would then make use of human language which would contain [186/1] an error, consider such a person to be an erring man, but not a heretic. On the other hand, however, it is also certain that such a person is setting up a dangerous hermeneutical principle, since this speech is not only put into the mouth of Josua, but is also used by the author of this writing, verse 13, a principle whose consequences make the Bible uncertain to him. It should also be noted that in recent times some astronomers have confessed that the Copernican system is also only a hypothesis (conjecture), and that some have returned to the view that the sun goes around the earth, e.g. Schelling, Carol Grande in his Welt-Gebäude, Leipzig, 1857. In the Bible we have divine thoughts and truths, which in the words of the Bible emerge as it were bodily from God. He has made use of human language, but it is impossible to use language that contains error. Incidentally, this is a problem and will probably not be solved until the last day; in the meantime, the safest way to proceed is to stick simply to the Scriptures rather than to human authorities, for since we are usually unable to investigate the matter ourselves, most people stick to authorities. In sum, one can deny something in such doctrines that are not organically connected with the doctrinal structure of Holy Scripture, as long as one does not recognize it. Scripture as long as one does not recognize that it is revealed in the Bible; as soon as one also recognizes this and yet denies it, one thereby rejects the Bible.
Seventh testimony.
Ibid. p. 120. [Mueller, p. 105]
Four pieces that belong to an article of faith.
Hollaz:
“To a real article of faith there belongs (1) that it is revealed in the written Word of God; (2) that it con cerns man’s salvation; (3) that it is intimately connected with the other dogmas of faith; (4) that it is inevident, that is, that it can be learned and known not from the light of nature, but only from the supernatural light of revelation.” (Exam., Proleg., II, qu. 14, p. 44)
Hollaz here shows what belongs to a true article of faith, namely, that it is revealed in the written word of God; 2) that <page 19> it concerns the salvation of man; 3) that it is intimately connected with the other dogmas of the faith; 4) that it is therefore inevident, i.e. cannot be recognized and investigated from the light of nature, but from the supernatural light of revelation.
So what does not have these four characteristics, it was further noted, is not an article of faith. But what is true of doctrine is also true of persons. A person can be a member of the church and yet not be a member of the church, the former if he belongs to the church only outwardly, according to his name or office, the latter if he is incorporated by faith into the body of Christ, i.e. into the church. [186/2]
Eighth testimony.
That secondary doctrines should also be accepted with faith.
Quenstedt:
“We must distinguish between fundamental articles of faith, which belong to saving faith, and those articles which are not fundamental, though also their knowledge is gained from the Word of God. These belong either to dogmatical or historical theology. Among these we classify the doctrine of Antichrist on account of the prophecies of Scripture revealed to us by the Holy Spirit through the prophet Daniel, through St. Paul, and in the Apocalypse of John. But we do not claim that the question of the Antichrist is of such a nature that its decision is necessary to all Christians for salvation or that ignorance of it is condemnable. In the first centuries there have been many Christians, just as there are many today, who were by no means addicted to the papistic errors, yet were doubtlessly saved without this truth that the pope is the Antichrist. Many fathers have presented contradictory opinions concerning Antichrist, since they were far removed from the fulfillment of the prophecies. So they expressed their opinions rather freely, or they adopted the opinions of others quite unwisely and spread them.” (Theol. didactico-polem., Part IV, ch. 16, sec. 2, fol. 1688)
Quenstedt shows here, it has been said, that non-fundamental articles of faith, the knowledge of which, however, is handed down in the Word of God, belong to the dogmatic or historical faith; to these he reckons the doctrine of Antichrist and shows that this doctrine is not necessary for all Christians to know for salvation, or that ignorance of it is condemnable.
The Iowans say that because the fathers speak of the doctrine of Antichrist as we have just heard, it makes no difference whether one believes it or not. But they forget that our fathers say that it belongs to the dogmatic or historical faith, i.e. to the doctrines which the Holy Scriptures require us to believe. Scripture tells us to believe. It is frightening to say that God has revealed many things, but it is not necessary to accept and believe all of them. Even lesser teachings than these must be precious and valuable to us as revealed by God; indeed, anyone who wanted to deny that Balaam's donkey spoke would, although this is not an article of faith, make the whole Bible uncertain; but how small is this miracle compared to the quite incomprehensible miracle of the incarnation of the Son of God. Whoever will not believe this, how will he believe this? Even in the Apostle’s Creed there is such a subordinate object, namely the words: "under Pontius Pilate;" although these words have only historical value, yet he who would [187/1] deny this fact would overturn both the symbol and the Scriptures.
Chronology.
It has been asked:
What is to be made of the fact that scholars today use a different chronology?
Answer:
This is undoubtedly wrong. Even the attempt to establish an exact chronology from the Bible is a futile one, for often only the beginning of a period is told, but not exactly where it ends; often the measure of time is only given in summary form, thus the lifetime of the patriarchs, the reign of the judges and kings is always given in round numbers of years. This is probably why God did not give the time in months and days, so that we would not become time- and day-weary like the papists. It is the same with the topographical description of places in the Holy Scriptures; we no longer know exactly where these and those things took place; we do not know exactly where the manger was, where the cross of Christ stood, where his tomb was, what the boundaries of the city of Jerusalem are, and so on. God has His wise intentions without <page 20> doubt. Only the general [information] is important and useful here, and we know that.
Ninth testimony.
Ibid. S. 121. [Mueller, pp. 105-106]
Even under the papacy there is still a church.
Aegidius Hunnius:
“An error going counter to the foundation of salvation involves a denial of a chief article of religion. The apostle in Heb. 6:1-2, enumerates such articles whose denial overthrows the foundation. Should anyone therefore deny that Christ is true God, or should he deny the doctrines of creation or incarnation, or should he subvert the supreme article of justification, we declare him to err concerning the foundation of salvation. Besides these there are minor errors which go counter to such articles as are less essential. These the apostle compares to stubble consumed by the fire of trial, while at the same time the erring person is saved because he holds fast the foundation of salvation clinging to the Rock, namely Christ; but he suffers the loss of his work which he has built upon the foundation. But it is quite another thing if anyone should say contemptuously: I am satisfied with the foundation of salvation, and it is enough for me rightly to believe that article while refusing to receive further instruction with respect to the others. Such a person would indeed err with regard to a minor article; yet his is not a simple error, but one that is joined with contempt for God’s Word. However, if anyone would depart from the truth in a minor error because of weakness of judgment, we do not doubt that such a one, if he holds fast to Christ, the Foundation of salvation, would receive forgiveness for his minor errors, just as he receives forgiveness of his sins.” [187/2] (Colloq. Ratisbonae [1601], excus. Lauingae, sess. 14, pp. 433 ff.)
It has been remarked that this testimony also shows that the distinctions made by our Fathers between the primary and secondary fundamental articles and between the non-fundamental articles are not made merely to indicate what must or must not be believed, but rather, on the assumption that everything in the Bible must be believed, they merely want to set out what is quite necessary, less necessary and not at all necessary to know for salvation. Without this distinction one will always either wrongly condemn or wrongly pronounce salvation. Without this distinction, one cannot come up against the Jesuits when they say: "You Lutherans claim that in the papist church the word of God was under a bushel and that all kinds of abominable, soul-damaging heresies were in vogue, and that it was not the true, one church of Christ. Where then was the Church before your Luther; then there would have been no Church at all, if we are not, and Christ's promise: "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," would have become a lie, for for a thousand years there would then have been no Church?" With this distinction of the importance of the truths of salvation alone, we can easily see and prove that even in the midst of the darkness of the Middle Ages and Roman rule there were believers and thus a true church, for the main truths, although very obscured, were still present in the Roman church.
Tenth testimony.
Ibid. S. 122 [Mueller, p. 106]
Who is to be considered a heretic.
The same A. Hunnius:
“It is something different if something is believed as truly historical which could be discredited without doing wrong; again, it is something different if something is believed as a dogma or article of faith. I will illustrate the matter by an example that is well known. Genesis 38 records the story of Judah’s incest with Tamar, his daughter-in-law. Now if anyone reads this story, he is bound by his faith [in the divine Word] to believe that this account is true. But if anyone would say that this story is a special article of faith, he errs. . . . All articles of faith must of necessity be known to all Christians. But the story of Judah’s incest with Tamar is not necessary for all Christians to know; there are in fact uncounted Christians who know nothing of it. Therefore this story is no article of faith, although as a matter of faith and as a narrative of the Holy Ghost it must be believed by all who either hear this story or read it in the Bible. . . . He indeed is a heretic who denies an article of faith; but not only he, but also he who denies a historical narrative of the Holy Ghost.” (Ibid., sess. 11, pp. 350, 351, 354) [188/1]
It is true that he is a heretic who denies an article of faith; but not only this, but also he who denies a historical narrative of the Holy Spirit.
For example, he who does not know the history of Judah with Tamar can still be a true Christian. But he who would deny it, even though he knows that it is in the Bible, would be a heretic and would cease to be a Christian — not because faith could not exist with this error in itself, but because he pulls the foundation of faith, the Bible, from under his feet and therefore his apparent faith cannot be of the right kind.
Eleventh testimony.
Ibid. S. 122. [Mueller, pp. 106-107]
An accusation of the Iowa Synod refuted.
Buddeus:
“The Holy Scriptures contain much that we are bound to believe because it is revealed to us by God; nevertheless it is not for that reason necessary to obtain salvation. In addition, much is demanded, and therefore necessary, that anyone may become a member of a particular congregation; and much more still, that one may administer the office of a pastor, though that is not necessary for salvation; for this reason we do not treat this here (in the doctrine of the articles of faith).” (Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae, Leipzig, 1724, p. 41)
So it says here: There is much contained in Holy Scripture which, because it has been revealed to us by God, we are bound to believe; and yet it is not necessary for the attainment of salvation. The Iowa Synod abuses this doctrine of our fathers to reproach us <page 21> for not holding church fellowship with those who are one with us in the primary and secondary fundamental articles. But when one speaks of a difference in the importance of the individual doctrines, it is not because one wishes to release anything revealed in the Scriptures. It is only to show what is or is not absolutely necessary for salvation, so that a false judgment is not passed on those who do not have the full truth. But Buddeus himself testifies in this passage that even more is necessary to be believed and known by those with whom one wishes to enter into church fellowship than is required for the attainment of salvation, and still more by those who wish to hold the ministry of preaching.
Twelfth testimony. Ibid. S. 123.
Problems.
Dannhauer:
“An article of faith is not a gloss, assertion, or opinion for which there is no clear and definite passage in Holy Scripture. Such, for example, are the questions concerning the time of the world’s creation, whether it took place in spring or in fall; the day and year of Christ’s [188/2] birth; the perpetual virginity of the blessed Virgin after His birth; the soul sleep, and other matters in which men might exercise their wits. But these dare not be forced upon others as sacred teachings of the church. Such excrescences occur in scholastic theology by the wholesale, where one tries to milk a he-goat, while another endeavors to catch the milk in a sieve.” (Hodo- soph, phaenom., 11, p. 667)
Here Dannhauer shows that there are many things that can be disputed on both sides, e.g. such questions as whether the world was created in spring or autumn; which is the day and year of Christ's birth; whether Mary remained a virgin even after the birth of Christ; all this is not decided in Scripture and the spirits may exercise themselves on it, but they must not try to impose their opinion on the Church as sacred truth. So it is with the question of the sleep of the soul, which one believes he may assume from Luke 16:19 ff.; this is a mere opinion and view, which cannot be proved from Scripture; but if anyone wanted to assume an eternal sleep of the soul, he would be caught up in a fundamental error.
Jewish conversion.
It was noted that the question of the conversion of the Jews should also be included in the problems, as Nic. Hunnius had also accepted a Jewish conversion, but was therefore not considered a heretic by the church.
It was replied:
If one does not go further than Nic. Hunnius, and with him only assumes so much that whole multitudes of Jews would still be converted to the Christian church, then this is a theological problem, which can therefore also be disputed on both sides. But if one dreams of a glorious future for the Jews as a special nation, for example with a return to Palestine and dominion over all peoples, then it already touches on chiliasm and becomes dangerous and reprehensible. As a nation, the Jews will remain Jews until the Last Day, for it says in 1 Thess. 2:16 that wrath will come upon them at last (είς τέλος) until the end. And Christ says: This generation will not pass away until all is done. Matt. 24:34. As a nation there is nothing more to be hoped for them; only then is there salvation for them, when they enter the open gates of the Christian church; but thereby they also cease to be Jews, and their glory will not be greater than that of other Christians; in God's kingdom bodily birth gives no privileges. Matt. 3:9.
We now moved on to the letter <page 22>
D.
The Lutheran Church strictly separates what is commanded and what is left free in God's Word (Adiaphora, church constitution). [189/1]
1. Scriptural Proof.
A Christian, as such, has no master over himself but Christ alone.
"One is your Master, Christ; but you are all brothers." Matthew 23:8: This passage shows that no Christian has anything to command another, for no one is above, no one below. Everything is free that Christ has not forbidden, and everything is forbidden that Christ has not set free. Neither men nor angels, neither church nor state, nor preachers can command and order even one word to a Christian as such, where they cannot say: Thus says your and our Master, Christ the Lord. And woe to those who dare to rob Christians of this freedom. Even a slave does not allow himself to be commanded by a another master; so Christians who have been freed from bondage by the blood of Christ should be even more vigilant about their freedom. Gal. 5:1. Also the word Heb. 13:17: "Obey your teachers, etc.," gives the preachers no authority except that of the Word, for they can say: Thus it is written, therefore you shall do it. There is no doubt that in time the state, here too, will try to impose laws on the church. We must take care and do what we can to prevent this from happening and to ensure that our consciences are not oppressed.
Our Synod also owes its prosperous existence to the recognition of this glorious passage; for it is for this reason that it has organized itself not as a legislative, but merely as a consultative body; and the fact that our congregations know that we demand no obedience except to God's Word, and that we want to make them as freemen in Christ, has given them confidence and joy to allow themselves to be gathered under Christ's scepter and to make such sacrifices for the kingdom of God as they have done. They know that we will not make them servants of men, but free children of God.
A Christian has to watch over his freedom, but he should not become angry with the weak.
2 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Gal 5:1 This second passage shows us that even what God has commanded us no longer concerns us if it is not part of the moral law and he does not command us as Christians. For example, we are exempt from the ceremonial and political law of the Jews, because God had a different economy with the Jews than with his Christians.
But one must be careful with those whose conscience is still caught up in adiaphora; if, for example a Puritan who had been informed of our doctrine wanted to forbid me to do random work on Sunday, because otherwise I would sin against the Third Commandment and be damned, then I would have to do this random work on Sunday as a testimony against him, in order not to be caught again under the servile yoke of the Old Testament Sabbath law, from which Christ has [189/2] freed me with great difficulty. If, however, I realized that he was a sincere Christian who was only caught up in his erring conscience, I would have to be very careful not to offend him and first try to persuade him otherwise with words. Only if he were to be revealed as a stubborn person, or even blasphemed, would I have a cord of wood delivered, and then chop wood to show him by deed that I was sure of my cause in my heart.
Therefore, in order not to offend a weak person, we must abstain from many things that are otherwise completely free to us, for while we are free in faith and conscience, we must make ourselves servants to all men according to love, but only in order to win some everywhere. Whoever does this for any other reason, out of fear of man or complacency, out of crucifixion, or in order to get on better in the world, denies the freedom to which Christ has brought him, and thus Christ himself.
Should a congregation be allowed to introduce compulsory schooling?
3. "I do not say that I command anything." 2 Cor. 8:8.
Here is the following:
Many think: Well, an apostle of Christ must have had power, as a messenger of God directly enlightened by the Holy Spirit, to command something, especially something as small as the way to levy a tax. But lo and behold, even this the first and greatest of all apostles did not allow himself.
It was asked whether a congregation would not be going too far if it included a paragraph in its church order to the effect that every member of the congregation was obliged to send his children to the congregational school, and that no exception would be allowed even if someone promised to ensure that his children were taught the catechism in a righteous manner in some other way.
Answer:
A congregation undoubtedly does wrong if it binds consciences in this way, for even a congregation has no right to command the individual.
The objection was raised that all those who belong to the congregation also appoint the congregation teacher, so that such a person would to a certain extent withdraw his call and dismiss the teacher for his own person.
Answer:
The appointment of a schoolteacher is not like the appointment of a pastor; for one can certainly appoint a teacher for a school, even if one has no child or sends none to school, but one cannot appoint a preacher for other people. If either the school is in a bad state, or if someone has a gifted child and God has given him the means to [190/1] educate his child further than he can in the parish school, and he supports and otherwise pays for the existence of the parish school, then his conscience should not be troubled because of this, even though it is of course generally the duty of every member of the congregation to support the school with money and children so that it can flourish.
Paul's example of how one should make oneself a servant of one's neighbor in love.
4. "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more." 1 Cor 9:19 This saying is intended to show that although we are free and in the faith, we should make ourselves servants in love. Thus Paul became a Jew to the Jews, kept his vow, and therefore also had Timothy circumcised for the sake of the Jews alone; but no doubt only after he had convinced him that he was free in faith from the law of circumcision, although God himself had commanded it; and Timothy put up with it out <page 24> of love for the Jews, in order to find entrance among them and to serve them for their salvation. But afterward, when the legal Jewish Christians said that Paul had thereby also confessed that the Gentile Christians must be circumcised, and even demanded that he circumcise the Titus also, he did not do so, because he would thereby have denied the pure doctrine and the faith, as he himself relates in Gal. 1:4, 5, that when certain false brethren intruded to defraud us of our liberty, that they might take us captive, we yielded not one hour to be subject to them, that the truth of the gospel might be established among you. So here love required us not to become a Jew to the Jews.
Here the discussions about the doctrine had to be interrupted due to lack of time.