Other Links:
Christian Dogmatics by Francis Pieper
Foreword and Preface to Volume I
Volume 1, Section I: Prolegomena (Chapters 1 - 10)
Foreword to the First Volume of the English Edition
"Called to a professorship at Concordia Theological Seminary, St. Louis, in 1878, Francis Pieper succeeded Dr. C. F. W. Walther as president of the institution in 1887. The outstanding gifts with which he was endowed led to his prompt recognition as the chief dogmatician of the Synod as well as the to the presidency of the general body from 1899 to 1911." (p. V)
"As the four-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation approached, Dr. Pieper, now relieved of the arduous duties of the synodical presidency, found opportunity to devote himself to a preparation of a Christian dogmatics. ...Since the first volume was to appear in the quadricentennial year, the author chose to offer first the loci that are the very heart of Scripture's message and were the fundamentals of Luther's glorious testimony: the grace of God in Christ, Christ's person and work, saving faith, conversion, and justification by faith. This volume, issued in 1917, became the second of the whole work. Volume III, treating sanctification, preservation, the means of grace, the Church, the ministry, the election of grace, and eschatology, followed in 1920." (p. V)
The project was brought to completion in 1924 with the publication of volume I, which contained the loci on the nature of theology, Holy Scripture, God, creation, divine providence, angels, and man. All three volumes were written in German and the whole work was titled Christliche Dogmatick.
Dr. Pieper died on June 3, 1931.
In 1941 a synodical committee was formed to plan the celebration of the centennial of the founding of the Missouri Synod (1847). One of its basic recommendations was that an English translation of the Christliche Dogmatick be carried out for the centennial celebration in 1947. That target date wasn't quite met; the first volume was published in January 1950.
Chief translator: Dr. Theodore Engelder; assistants: Prof. Walter W. F. Albrecht of Concordia Seminary, Springfield, Illinois; Dr. Fred E. Mayer of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri; and Prof. Lorenz F. Blankenbuehler, house editor of Concordia Publishing House. (Dr. Engelder died in June, 1949, after most of the translation except for the later parts of vol. 3 had been completed.)
Foreword prepared by the Synodical Centennial Committee:
H. W. Romoser
A. H. Kramer
G. A. Fleischer
E. T. Lams
H. M. Zorn
Author's Preface to Vol. I of the Original German Edition
"More than half of the present volume is devoted to 'The Nature and Character of Theology' and 'Holy Scripture.' This has become necessary because modern Protestant theology has adopted unchristian views regarding the nature and contents of theology. And this again is simply the inevitable consequence when men deny that Holy Scripture is God's own infallible Word. Modern theology has gone the way of Rome. In the Church of Rome, Christian theology has completely broken down, for there the sole authority of Scripture is denied and the subjective opinion of the Pope is made the real authority. Just so modern Protestant theology has abandoned the objective divine authority of Scripture and put in its place 'Christian experience,' that is, the subjective views of 'the theologizing subject,' of the theologian. This situation called for the comprehensive treatment given in the first two sections." (p. IX)
"Considerable space has been given to the charge, raised especially in German dogmatical treatises, that the Missouri Synod teaches a 'repristination theology,' which must inevitably prove harmful to the Church. The claim is made that by identifying Scripture and the Word of God our theology will lead to an intellectualism which will stifle all true and genuine religion of the heart... This matter does not properly belong to dogmatics. Nevertheless, I considered it necessary to refute the unwarranted charge and to remove any misgivings concerning the 'repristination theology'..." (p. IX)
Prolegomena: The Nature and Character of Theology
1. Our Position
"We take the position that Holy Scripture, in contradistinction to all other books in the world, is God's own infallible Word and therefore the only source and norm of Christian doctrine." (p. 3)
"...The overwhelming majority of modern theologians refuses to identify Scripture and the Word of God; and accordingly they do not make Scripture but their own heart the source and judge of Christian doctrine." (p. 3)
"Luther admonishes all readers of the Bible—and he does not exclude the theologians—: 'When you read the words of Holy Scripture, you must realize that God is speaking them.' [Sermons on Genesis, St. L. III:21]" (p. 4)
"...the results show that the theology which has moved away from Scripture into the domain of the 'pious faith-concsciousness' is in a bad way. One of the deplorable products of this theology is its denial of the satisfactio Christi vicaria [the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, the substitutional atonement]...right here we have the real reason why Scripture is not recognized as Christ's Word. Whoever denies the satisfactio vicario does not know the Christ whom Scripture shows us. (John 1:29: 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world'; Matt. 20:28: 'to give his life a ransom for many.')" (p. 6)
"Religion to the heathen means man's endeavor to placate the deity through his own efforts and works, through worship, sacrifices, moral exercises, ascetic discipline, and the like. The religion of the heathen is therefore a religion of Law.
"In the Christian language, religion has an altogether different meaning. The Christian religion is faith in the Gospel, that is, faith in the divine message that through the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ (satisfactio vicario) God is already reconciled to all men." (pp. 8-9)
"Therefore such religious bodies within external Christendom as teach that man is reconciled to God, wholly or in part, through his own works have reverted to the pagan conception of religion and are, as to their teaching, outside Christendom." (p. 9)
"How many essentially different religions are there in the world? The preceding chapter has shown that there are...only two essentially different religions: the religion of the Law, that is the endeavor to reconcile God through man's own works, and the religion of the Gospel, that is, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, belief wrought through the Gospel by the Holy Ghost that we have a gracious God through the reconciliation already effected by Christ, and not because of our own works. (pp. 9-10)"
Luther: "'...the true and only religion and the true and only worship is this, that one believes the forgiveness of sins, which God gives graciously and freely, without subsequent or previous good works, from pure mercy, just as he freely gives the light of the sun and all other good things. Believing in this good God, who bestows his blessings graciously and freely, is the true religion and the true righteousness.' (St. L. VI:540)" (pp. 13-14)
"..can we say the homogeneity of the religions in the world be established on the basis of the philosophy of religion? Certainly not, for the religion espoused by the philosophers is the very opposite of the Christian religion; it is the religion of works.—Here we encounter the difficulty that the advocates of a philosophical conception of religion are by no means agreed as to what this term means and covers. But a very clear hint as to its meaning is given by those religious philosophers who say that the philosophical conception of religion must be kept 'clean and objective,' that is to say, in determining 'the essence of religion' the teaching of Scripture must be entirely disregarded and its claim to be the Word of God and the source and norm of the Christian religion ruled out. The religious philosophers insist that any definition of religion must be in accord with 'the human idea' of religion. They go so far as to say—and from their standpoint they are compelled to say—that there can be no philosophy of religion 'in the strict sense' until the human mind has freed itself from all 'religious prejudices' and is 'unfettered by dogmatism and faith in an external authority,' has outgrown the idea that religious knowledge comes to man in a miraculous way through divine revelation, and has rid itself of the superstition that the religious dogmas are something sacred, given from above, fixed and inviolable. In a word, the prerequisite of a 'genuine,' 'clean and objective' philosophy of religion is the repudiation of the divine authority of Holy Scripture.
"True, such a purely human conception of religion is then attained. But at what a price! It is going to be the pagan conception of religion, the religion, as Max Mueller puts it, of 'salvation by works.' That is inevitable... All men, including the philosophers, know something about the Law of God. 'The work of the Law' is written also in the hearts of the philosophers (Rom. 2:15). But that is the limit of their innate religious knowledge. It follows that their religious thoughts are confined within the limits of the Law and the works of man." (pp. 16-17)
"In passing, we should like to make a few remarks concerning those religious philosophers...who hold that the truths of the Christian religion, first revealed in Scripture can also be demonstrated as true by rational processes, so that they are no longer merely believed, but also intellectually comprehended, and accepted not merely on the authority of Scripture, but also on the authority of reason. That is what Anselm, 'the father of scholasticism,' meant when he declared 'Credo, ut intelligam' (I believe in order to understand)...
"Christ does not approve of such notions. He condemns them as false when He declares that all religious truth is mediated solely by faith in His Word (John 8:31: 'If ye continue in My Word')." (pp.18-19)
A footnote on page 19 reads, "R. Seeberg, too, points out that Anselm and Abelard operate on the same rationalistic basis. Both give ratio a place beside faith." The result is said to be the denial, in Anselm, of the vicarious nature of Christ's fulfillment of the Law, the obendientia activa, and in Abelard of the vicarious atonement.
"Luther's writings abound in the statements that men derive their knowledge of divine things either from the Law or from the Gospel, that thus there are but two principles of religious knowledge." (p. 21)
"As there are but two religions, ...so there are but two principles of cognition (principia cognoscendi) from which these religions are derived—two essentially different sources.
"The religion of the Law...is of human origin. It is a 'man-made religion.' That is the clear teaching of Scripture. Let us present this matter more fully under three heads..." (p. 19)
- "First, Scripture teaches that even after the fall men still have a knowledge of the divine law. They know the judgment of God" (Rom. 1:32)" (p. 19)
- "Secondly, the heathen have an evil conscience because of their transgressions of the divine Law. They know 'that they which commit such things are worthy of death,' of eternal damnation (Rom. 1:32)" (pp. 19-20)
- "And so, in the third place, they propose to reconcile the Deity through 'good works,' moral endeavors, self-devised worship and sacrifices, etc." (p. 20)
"The religion of the Law is the religion of the flesh. The Apostle Paul expressly calls it that when he reminds the Galatians, who sought to obtain justification through the Law: 'Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?' (Gal. 3:3) The religion of the Law is the product of the unregenerate, the natural mind. Luther on Gal. 3:3: 'Paul setteth here the spirit against the flesh. He calleth not the flesh (as I have said before) fleshly lust, beastly passions, or sensual appetites; for he entreateth not here of lust and such other fleshly desires, but of forgiveness of sins, of justifying the conscience, of obtaining righteousness before God, of delivery from the Law, sin, and death... Flesh therefore is here taken for the very righteousness and wisdom of the flesh, and the judgment of reason, which seeketh to be justified by the Law.' (St. L. IX:288 f.) [English edition: vol. 26, "Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4," p. 216.]" (p. 20)
"The religion of the Gospel, on the contrary, is not of man, but of God. It deals with things that 'have not entered into the heart of man' (1 Cor. 2:9)....The Christian religion, the religion of grace, is very truth, the wisdom of God, and men know of it only through God's revelation in the Word." (pp. 20-21)
"How old is the Gospel religion? It was revealed immediately after the Fall in the promise that the Seed of the Woman would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). All the Old Testament Prophets taught it unisono ['in unision'], and all the children of God in the days of the Old Testament believed it unanimiter ['unanimously'], as Peter testifies: 'To Him give all the Prophets witness that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins' (Acts 10:43). Paul, too, declares that the righteousness which is obtained choris nomon, 'without the law,' by faith in Christ, was witnessed 'by the Law and the Prophets' (Rom. 3:21) And he brings the historical proof for this in Romans, Chapter Four." (p. 21)
The sole cause of the divisions in the Christian Church is the attempt by various false teachers to supplant the pure Gospel (the doctrine of salvation by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone) with their own doctrine, which invariably is found to be one form or another of the religion of Law, or of works-righteousness.
"It is nothing that strange that the non-Christian religions, which seek to reconcile God through human works, appear in well-nigh countless and diverse forms. For these works do not bring peace to the conscience, and the inevitable result is that men keep on devising new works and new forms of worship. That accounts, say the Lutheran Confessions, for the multiplicity and diversity of the religions of the Law." (pp. 21-22)
"But it is a strange thing that diversities and divisions should appear within Christendom. For the Christian Church has only one principle of cognition, namely the word of Christ, given by Christ to the Church through His Apostles and Prophets,31 only one source of the saving knowledge, therefore only one doctrine, one faith."
Footnote 31: "John 8:31-32: 'If ye continue in My Word, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth.'—John 17:20: 'Which shall believe on Me through their Word.' All who come to faith in Christ are brought to faith, now and to the Last Day, through the Word of the Apostles. See also Eph. 2:20: 'Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.'"
"...What, then, causes the divisions in the Church?" (p. 23)
"...Divisions arose in the Apostolic Church because men refused to recognize the Word of the Apostles as the Word of God and offered the Church in place of the Word of God their own human notions. That is clearly stated by Paul in Rom. 16:17: 'Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.'" (p. 23)
The major divisions that disrupt the church today are identified as "the Roman Catholic body, the Reformed communions, the factions within the Lutheran Chruch, and the modernistic schools." Their formal and material principles are examined by Pieper to show that "the attempt to get rid of the Word of the Apostles and of the central teaching of Christianity, the doctrine of salvation by grace, has been and still is the sole cause of the divisions in the Christian Church." (p. 23)
"The Roman Catholic body, the largest in Christendom, acknowledges in principle the divine authority of Scripture. But it sets Scripture aside by insisting that its sense can be ascertained only through the interpretation given by the Roman Catholic Church, the sancta mater ecclesia, that is, in the last analysis, by the Pope....The inevitable result of thus interpreting Scripture according to the sense of 'holy mother church,' that is to say, of the Pope, is that the Romish Church expressly and emphatically anathematizes the central doctrine of the Christian religion, the doctrine of of justification by faith in the Gospel of grace without the deeds of the Law.34 " (p. 24)
Footnote 34, p. 24: "Tridentinum, Sess. VI, Can. 11, 12, 20: 'If any one saith, that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost (Rom. 5:5) and is inherent in them; or even that grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema.—If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.—If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments; let him be anathema."
"The Reformed denominations likewise acknowledge in principle the divine authority of the divinely inspired Scriptures....But in practice Reformed theology forsakes the Scripture principle....In those doctrines in which it differs from the Lutheran Church and for the sake of which it has established itself as a separate body within visible Christendom, the Reformed Church, as far as it follows in the footsteps of Zwingli and Calvin, sets aside the Scripture principle and operates instead with rationalistic axioms. The Reformed theologians frankly state that reason must have a voice in determining Christian doctrine.
"Rationalistic considerations have produced, first, the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace. While Scripture teaches that God offers and gives the forgiveness of sins which Christ gained and creates and sustains faith through external means ordained by Him (the Word of the Gospel, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper), Zwingli and Calvin argue that it does not befit the Holy Ghost to make use of external means for the revelation and operation of His grace, that He does not need such external means, and that He does not, in fact, use them where his saving grace operates.39 " (p. 26)
Footnote 39, page 26: "Thus Zwingli, Fidei Ratio. Niemeyer, p. 24: 'The Spirit needs no guide or vehicle, for He is Himself the power and the bearer by whom everything is borne, who needs not bo be borne.' So also Calvin, Inst. IV, ch. 14, 17. 'We get rid of that fiction by which the cause of justification and the power of the Holy Spirit are included in the elements as vessels and vehicles.' Geneva Catechism (Niemeyer, p. 161): 'It does not inhere in the visible signs, so that we should have to seek salvation there.' Charles Hodge (Syst. Theol. II, 684): 'Efficacious grace acts immediately.' Boehl, too, teaches that the Word is efficacious only in those who have already been regenerated, through the immediate operation of the Spirit. (Dogmatik, p. 447 f.)"
"Again, when the Reformed deny the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper, they are repudiating the Word of God because of rationalistic considerations....Carlstadt and Zwingli, and Calvin, too, deny the Real Presence, clearly taught in the words of institution, on the strength of the rationalistic canon that wherever the body of Christ is, it must necessarily occupy space and be visible. The Reformed denial of the Real Presence is thus based not on what Scripture says, but on what reason dictates; a human judgment counts more than the Scripture statement." (p. 27)
"The false principle, both the formal and the material, of the Calvinistic theologians is evident particularily in their answer to the question: Is the grace of God in Christ universal (gratia universalis) or particular (gratia particularis)? The Calvinistic Reformed will not permit Scripture to answer the question, though in many passages it teaches the gratia universalis (John 1:29; John 3:16-18; 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim. 2:4-6, etc.); they find the answer in the historical 'result' or the historical 'experience.' Hodge: 'We must assume that the result is the interpretation of the purposes of God' (Syst. Theol. II, 323).42 (p. 28)
Footnote 42, p. 28: "So also Calvin, Inst. III, ch. 24, 17, 15: 'However universal the promises of salvation may be there is no discrepancy between them and the predestination of the reprobate, provided we attend to their effect.—Experience teaches that He does not will the repentance of those He does not will the repentance of those whom He externally calls, in such a manner as to affect all their hearts.'"
Note this also, from the next footnote on the same page: "...Hodge: 'It cannot be supposed that God intends what is never accomplished—that He adopts means for an end which is never to be attained. This cannot be affirmed of any rational being who has the wisdom and power to secure the execution of his purposes. Much less can it be said of Him whose wisdom and power are infinite.' (Loc. cit.)"The Arminian section of the Reformed Church makes much of the gratia universalis, but does so at the expense of the sola gratia. Arminianism stands for a human cooperation in conversion.45 But in thus 'limiting' the sola gratia it has abandoned the Scripture principle, for Scripture ascribes the conversion and salvation of man to the monergism of God (Eph. 1:19: 'who believe according to the working of His mighty power'; Philip. 1:29; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 Cor. 1:23)." (p. 29)
Footnote 45, page 29: "The Apol. Conf. Remonstr. declares (p. 162) that the divine grace working towards conversion 'cannot accomplish anything without the cooperation of man's free will and therefore its success depends on the free will.'"
"This criticism applies, of course, also to the synergistic Lutherans. Synergism teaches that man's conversion and salvation depend on his 'right conduct,' 'self-assertion,' 'self-determination,' 'lesser guilt in comparison with others,' etc.—that is the same as the Arminian 'co-operation'—and thus blocks the entrance of saving faith into the heart. Faith finds entrance only in crushed hearts, and it is the very nature of the Christian faith to rest on the sola gratia.48" (pp. 29-30)
Footnote 48, page 30: "Apology: 'As often as we speak of faith, we wish an object to be understood, namely, the promised mercy' (Trigl. 136, 55)."
"At the present time the dissensions and divisions outside and within the visible Church are due to the brazen denial of the divine authority of Scripture on the part of most of the leading theologians. Denying that Holy Scripture is God's own infallible Word, these men naturally discard Scripture as the sole source and norm of the Christian doctrine, and thus they eo ipso do away with the principle of unity in the Christian Church." (p. 30)
"If men refuse to believe Christ and His Apostles when they declare that Scripture is the inviolable Word of God (John 10:35: 'The Scripture cannot be broken'; 2 Tim. 3:16: 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God'; 1 Pet. 1:10-12), will they not also, to remain consistent, refuse to believe what Christ and His Apostles teach concerning the Saviorship of Christ (John 3:16; Matt. 20:28: 'give his life a ransom for many'; John 1:29; 1 John 1:9; Rom. 3:28; etc.)?" (p. 31)
"We should here like to call attention to the fact that the Lutheran Church has proved its unwavering adherence to the sola Scriptura in a matter in which the great majority of theologians from Augustine down to our day have under the stresss of rationalistic considerations abandoned the Scripture principle. We refer to what is known as the crux theologorum. The question: Are you willing to maintain both the universalis gratia and the sola gratia? forces men to disclose whether Scripture or reason rules their theology. The Calvinists cannot pass this final examination. They insist, as we have seen, that if the sola gratia is to be saved, the gratia universalis must be sacrificed. And the synergists, too, fail in this this final test; they demand that in order to save the gratia universalis, the sola gratia must be surrendered. Both, says reason, cannot be maintained at the same time. The Lutheran Church is fully conscious of the difficulty which the human mind here encounters. But our church maintains both the universalis gratia and the sola gratia, fully and without any restrictions, because both doctrines are clearly revealed in Scripture. It leaves the intellectual difficulty unsolved for the present; it awaits the solution in yonder life." (pp. 32-33)
Christianity is the absolutely perfect religion for two reasons: 1) it conveys the perfect salvation, and 2) its source is God's Word, which is perfect.
"The Christian religion is the 'absolute,' that is to say, the absolutely perfect, religion. It is not in need of any supplementation or improvement, and it cannot be developed to a higher degree of perfection. It is unsurpassable.
"By that we do not mean it presents a 'logically complete whole,' a system of religious thought in which there are no gaps for the human mind." (p. 34)
"Again, Christianity must not be called the absolute religion in so far as it teaches the 'most perfect morality.' To be sure, the Christian religion teaches the best, the perfect, system of ethics. The Christian morality cannot be surpassed, for it centers in the command: 'Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,' and 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself' (Matt. 22:37-40). But this does not constitute the Christian religion. The love of God and of the neighbor is the daughter of faith. We love because we know that 'God loved us and sent His Son to be the Propitiation for our sins' (1 John 4:9-21)." (pp. 34-35)
From foonote 55, page 35, quoting Nitzsch-Stephan: "...mere obligations do not constitute a religion and the Christian's love is not merely to be patterned after God's love, but according to our Christian faith the love of God is the prerequiste and enabling cause of our love. We love because we know and realize that God, redeeming us and forgiving us our sins, first loved us."
"Christianity is the 'absolute,' altogether perfect, and unsurpassable religion for two reasons.
"The first reason is that it conveys the perfect salvation. It does not ask man to reconcile God through his own works or own virtures as all non-Christian religions do, but it teaches man to accept and obtain by faith the perfect and unsurpassable reconciliation effected by Christ—'God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself' (2 Cor. 5:18-19)....(p. 35)
"Because through Christ's satisfactio vicaria God is reconciled, the sins of the world forgiven, and this forgiveness proclaimed in the Gospel, the person who by the working of the Gospel (Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 2:4-5) believes in the Gospel, is through faith—without the deeds of the Law, choris ergon nomou—declared righteous before God, and that means he is perfect (pepleromenos, teleios) in the sight of God (Col. 2:10; 1 Cor. 2:6)" (p. 35).56 For this is God's method: to him whoh is inherently ungodly (asebes) his faith is counted for righteousness (Rom. 4:5); Christ's perfect righteousness covers the sinner's own unrighteousness (1 John 2:1-2).
[From footnote 56, pages 35-36: "Col. 2:10: 'Ye are complete in Him.' Not only the 'more advanced' Christians, but all who have received Christ Jesus the Lord by faith, vv. 5, 7, are perfect in Christ. The Apostle is here warning the Christians against the philosophy which belittles our perfection in Christ and sets itself up as the way to greater perfection, v.8...
"The 'perfect,' teleioi, of 1 Cor. 2:6, too ('howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect'), are not the 'mature' Christians....The 'perfect' are all Christians (Luther, Olshausen, etc.). Wolf's Curae reviews the various interpretations of our passage and finds with Luther and most other interpreters that the 'perfect' are the believers, those who are described in Rom. 1:24 as 'the called,' those who have obeyed the call." The context deals only "with what they now have by faith in the Gospel of Christ Crucified."]
"It is thus clear that in order to preserve the absolutely unique character of the Christian religion, we must keep the satisfactio vicaria inviolate. If we held that the work of Christ did not fully reconcile God but needs to be supplemented by the 'infused grace,' the keeping of the commandments of God and the Church, as Rome teaches, or by 'the reshaping of man's life into its divine form,' as the modern Protestants teach, we should thereby divest the Christian religion of its specific character and reduce it to the level of the religions of the Law; and the assurance of grace and of the sonship with God would be replaced by the monstrum incertitudinis ['monster of uncertainty']. But as long as we teach and believe that Christ's vicarious atonement has fully reconciled God and that we are thereby fully justified by faith (Rom. 3:28) and have peace with God (Rom. 5:1-5), Christianity will be for us eo ipso ['by that very fact'] the absolute religion; we shall look for nothing better, nothing higher." (pp. 36-37)
"In the second place, the Christian religion is perfect and unsurpassable because its source and norm is not the word of men, but God's own Word, which is perfect and beyond criticism." (p. 37)
"...according to Scripture, Christianity did not gradually acquire its 'absolute' character but was from the very beginning the 'absolute' religion." (p. 38)
"It is, therefore, incorrect to speak of the Christian religion as the 'highest,' the 'most perfect' religion, the 'acme' of religions. The use of these terms creates the impression as though there were only a difference in degree between Christianity and the non-Christianity [sic?] religions, while in fact they differ radically. There is an essential difference as respects their origin (God-made, man-made), their nature (Gospel, Law), and their effect (assurance of salvation, hopelessness). Christianity differs from all non-Christian religions not as light differs from dusk, but as light differs from darkness (Eph. 5:8: 'Ye were somtimes darkness, but now ye are light'; Is. 9:2; Is. 60:2)." (p. 39)
"Some have argued against the absoluteness of Christianity on the basis of the difference between the Old and the New Testament. But this difference pertains only to the increasing clarity and the extent of revelation; there is no difference as to the content of the divine revelation. Both Testaments teach that the one and only way of life for men is faith in Christ, salvation without the deeds of the Law. Christ tells the Jews: 'If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins' (John 8:24). But in order to ward off the idea that He was thereby introducing a novum, He declares that He is the true content of the Scriptures of the Old Testament: 'They are they which testify of Me' (John 5:39). Paul, too, protests against the erroneous idea as though by teaching justification not by the Law, but by grace through faith in Christ, he is teaching a new method of obtaining justification; he shows that the choris nomou ['apart from the law'] method had been witnessed by the Law and the Prophets' (Rom. 3:21-26) and that only this conception of the religion of the Old Testament is historically correct (Romans 4). (pp. 39-40)
"In ecclesiastical terminology a distinction is made between Christian religion and Christian theology, religion (in the subjective sense) designating the knowledge of God and divine matters which all Christians have, and theology (in the subjective sense), the special knowledge of the teachers of the church." (p. 40)
"...We can accept this distinction. Scripture teaches (a) that all Christians have a knowledge of divine matters, for 'they shall all be taught of God' (John 6:45); and (b) that the teachers of the Church should possess a special knowledge.61"
Footnote 61, page 40: "The rhetorical question: 'Are they all teachers?' (1 Cor. 12:29) means that not all Christians are teachers. According to 1 Tim. 3:2-5 one who would be a bishop must be disachtichos, 'apt to teach,' have a special degree of the ability to teach, for, according to verse 5, he is to take care not only of himself and his own house, but also of the church of God. Paul stresses this more in 2 Tim. 2:2: 'The things that thou has heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also.' Therefore men must not be elected to the teaching office by lot or in any other haphazard way; only such may be chosen as possess the qualifications set down in 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-11, one of which is a special aptitude to teach."
Pieper defines his use of the term theology as meaning "the divine knowledge necessary for the administration of the public ministry" (p. 44). He also expounds upon the distinction between "theology in the subjective sense" (knowledge of God and His Word, and the aptitude to teach it) and "theology in the objective sense" (a body of doctrine), and discusses, in the light of Scripture, four related meanings given by the Church to the term.
"The original meaning of theologia is clearly logos peri tou theou ['the word about God'?]. Theology denotes, in its subjective sense, the knowledge of God and of divine matters; in its objective sense it designates the doctrine of God." (p. 41)
"Within the Christian Church the word theology and its cognate theologian are not always used in the same sense. The reminder is here in place that since these terms are not found in Scripture but belong to the vocabulary of the Church, there should be no strife about words. What matters is that the words used should not express any unscriptural ideas. The matter denoted by these words must be contained in Scripture. And that is the case when the Church takes theology to mean:
"1. The special measure of the knowledge of God and the divine doctrine which public ministers in the congregation should possess....
"2. The knowledge of God and the divine doctrine which is required of those who train future public teachers....
"3. The knowledge of God and the divine doctrine possessed by all Christians....
"4. The knowledge and doctrine of certain parts of the Christian religion, namely, of the deity of Christ and, respectively, of the Trinity.70 This use of the term theology is quite general. We, too, call the doctrine of the deity of Christ and of the Trinity 'theology in the narrow sense' to distinguish it from cosmology, anthropology, Christology, ecclesiology, etc." (pp. 43-44)
From footnote 70 on page 44: "Thus Gregory Nazianzen (d. ca. 390) was called ho theologos because in speech and writing he had so ably defended the doctrine of the deity of Christ. And we know that the Church Fathers called the evangelist John ho theologos because his Gospel lays particular stress on the eternal, essential deity of Christ....The Church Fathers distinguished between theology as the doctrine of the divinty of Christ and oikonomia (dispensatio) as the doctrine concerning the incarnate Christ....By reason of this specific use of theologia the verb theologein, to theologize, came to be used in the sense of 'confessing God.' Thus Athanasius: 'How can you theologize the Spirit (confess the Spirit as God) if you are not ready to say that He has the same essence and glory, will and power, as the Father and the Son?' (De S. Trin., dial. 3. Opp. ed. Bonutius II, 190 sq. Quoted by Walther in Lehre und Wehre, 1868, p. 7)."
"...it is an unscriptural use of language when men define theology as a knowledge of God and divine things which, it is claimed, reaches farther than faith in the Word of Scripture and expands faith into scientific comprehension. This is the proton pseudos* of modern theology in all of its various forms. And we have to keep on insisting that when men imagine that their theological knowledge rises above faith in the written Word, they are deluding themselves; their alleged knowledge is ignorance." (p. 44)
*From Scaer's Latin glossary to Pieper: "A false proposition which forms the basis for an entire system, which is also in turn permeated with the same error of thought."
"Following the custom of the early Lutheran theologians, we shall here use the term theology to denote the divine knowledge necessary for the administration of the public ministry. Theology, then, taken subjectively, or concretely, is the aptitude (ichanotes [Greek], habitus [Latin]) wrought by the Holy Ghost in a Christian to perform the functions of the pastoral office, i.e., to teach the Word of God, the Word of Scripture, in all of its purity, both publicly and privately, to refute all false doctrine, and thus to lead sinners to faith in Christ and to salvation. Theology taken objectively as doctrine is the Christian doctrine in its correct oral and written presentation by the public minister of the church. Both definitions are contained, in substance, in Scripture. The subjective concept of theology is found in 2 Cor. 3:5-6: 'Our sufficiency [ichanotes: ability] is of God, who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament.' We have the objective concept, for example, in 2 Tim. 1:13: 'Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me.' 73 " (pp. 44-45)
From footnote 73, page 45, on 2 Tim. 1:13: 'The passage states very clearly, first, that Timothy heard hugiainontes logoi (sound words) from the Apostle, words that did not express unsound human opinions, but the pure divine truth; and, secondly, that Paul set these 'sound words' before Timothy not as matter of passing entertainment or mere amusement, but as the hupotuposis, copy, model, pattern, norma sanorum verborum, by which Timothy should be guided in his teaching. Note also the eke, 'hold,' 'hold fast'; Timothy is not at liberty to depart from the norm set up by Paul....Matthies: 'hupotuposis, pattern, as in 1 Tim. 1:16, distinct type, original and model.'...The hupotuposis by which men are to be guided becomes eo ipso a pattern."
"Theology in the sense of aptitude, or 'personal qualification,' is defined in all those Scripture passages which describe the persons to whom according to God's will and ordinance the teaching office in the Church may be committed." (p. 46)
"1. The theological aptitude is a spiritual aptitude (habitus spiritualis, supernaturalis), that is to say, an aptitude which in every case presupposes, besides natural gifts, personal faith in Christ (faith in the forgiveness of sins by grace for the sake of Christ's satisfactio vicaria). In other words, it presupposes the conversion of the theologian." (p. 46)
"2. The theological aptitude includes the ability of the theologian to confine himself in his teaching entirely to God's Word; he must be able to suppress his own thoughts about God and divine matters and put aside the thoughts of other men, deriving the doctrine excusively from the Word of God, from Holy Scripture." (p. 48)
"3. Another theological skill is the ability to teach the whole Word of God, the entire truth of Scripture. Only he is an able minister of the church who can say with the Apostle Paul: 'I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God' (Acts 20:27)." (pp. 48-49)
"4. Again, only he is a fit minister of the Church who is able to refute false teachers. That is listed as one of the necessary qualifications of an elder or bishop: 'Holding fast the faithful Word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers...whose mouths must be stopped' (Titus 1:9-11)." (p. 49)
"Walther does not go too far when he writes: 'A man may proclaim the pure doctrine, but if he does not condemn and refute the opposing false doctrine, does not warn against the wolves in sheep's clothing, the false prophets, and unmask them, he is not a faithful steward of God's mysteries, not a faithful shepherd of the sheep entrusted to him, not a faithful watchman on the walls of Zion, but, as the Word of God says, an unfaithful servant, a dumb dog, a traitor. The terrible consequences of the minister's failure to use the elenchus are before our eyes—many souls lost and the Church deeply hurt. Polemics are absolutely needed. Not only because a doctrine is more fully comprehended in the light of its antithesis, but mainly because the errorists so craftily mask their error behind a show of truth that the simple Christians, if not forewarned, are despite their love of the truth only too easily deceived. The pastor cannot wash his hands in innocence, pleading that he has always preached the full truth, if he did not at the same time warn against the error and, when necessary, identify it by naming the errorist; if his sheep, either while he is still serving or after he had to leave them for another field, become the prey of the ravening wolves in sheep's clothing, he is guitly of their blood.' (Walther, Pastorale, p. 82f. [Fritz, Pastoral Theology, 1945, p. 336f.].)" (p. 50)
"5. The theological aptitude includes, finally, the willingness and strength to suffer for the sake of Christian doctrine. Scripture distinctly includes the readiness to suffer for the sake of Christ and His Word as a necessary part of the theologian's equipment." (p. 51)
"...objective theology (theologia positiva) is, as our old Lutheran dogmaticians say, nothing else than Scripture itself arranged according to doctrines; hence all the parts that go to make up this body of doctrine (corpus doctrinae), the least important no less than the most important articles, must be based on Scripture." (p. 52)
All theologians since the days of the Apostles, says Luther, must confine themselves in their teaching to the teaching of the Apostles: 'We are catechumens and pupils of the Prophets. Let us simply repeat and preach what we have heard and learned from the Prophets and Apostles' (St. L. III:1890). Luther enforces the demand that the theologians simply 'repeat the words of the Apostles after them' with the solemn warning: 'Neither ought any doctrine be taught or heard in the Church but the pure Word of God, that is to say, the Holy Scriptures; otherwise accursed be both the teachers and hearers together with their docrine.' The same truth is expressed in the well known axiom: Quod non est biblicum, not est theologicum.
"It follows that (Christian) theology is not made up of the variable notions and opinions of men, but is the immutable divine truth or God's own doctrine (doctrina divina). It has this quality because of the source from which it is drawn. According to the witness of Christ and His Apostles and its own self-attestation in the hearts of the Christians, Holy Scripture is God's infallible Word, and therefore the doctrine taken from the Scripture is not 'after the tradition of men' (Col. 2:8), not man's doctrine, but God's own doctrine, 'the doctrine of God our Savior' (Titus 2:10). And in God's Church noting but God's own doctrine may be preached and heard. The door of the Church is closed to all doctrines devised by men.
"This truth needs to be stressed in view of the contrary claims of modern theology. The moderns have nothing to offer but human doctrine. Refusing to accept Scripture as the Word of God, they have found it theologically unreliable and have substituted for it as the source of doctrine the human heart, the theological Ego." (pp. 52-53)
"Luther takes this matter up again when he discusses the authority of the Christian Church. He denies that the Church has the authority to make Christian doctrine or to decree articles of faith, because the Church has and proclaims no word of its own, but only Christ's Word. The Church repudiates every teaching which is not Christ's Word..." (p. 56)
"Nothing must be injected into the corpus doctrinae of the Church which is not contained in Scripture. And in order to accentuate this characteristic feature of the Christian doctrine, they ["our old Lutheran theologians"] have called objective theology theologia ektupos, ectypal, or derived, theology, that is, a reproduction, re-presentation, of the theologia archetupos, the archetypal, or original theology, which is that knowledge of God and divine things originally found only in God, but which God has graciously communicated to man through His Word." (p. 58)
"The old theologians develop the following thoughts: (1) Only God knows God; God dwells in a light which no man can approach unto (1 Tim. 6:16; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; John 1:18a; Matt. 11:27). (2) God stepped out of this unapproachable light and revealed Himself to man, so that man can, in a measure, know God. He reveals Himself to man in the realm of nature and through His Word. God's self-revelation in nature (Rom. 1:19-21; Rom. 1:32; Rom. 2:14-15; Acts 14:17; Acts 17:26-27) is the source of natural theology, of the natural knowledge of God. God's revelation of Himself in the Word (John 1:18b; John 8:31-32; Eph. 2:20) is the source, and the only source, of Christian theology, of the saving knowledge of God." (p. 58)
"Modern theology flatly rejects the thesis that the Christian doctrine is doctrina divina and in no way doctrina humana....modern theologians refuse to recognize Scripture as God's Word. They insist that the only scientifically correct method is to draw on 'the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing individual.' Thus they do not base their theology on the objective divine truth, but on subjective human opinions." (pp. 59-60)
"The moderns are determined to establish their anthropocentric theology in the Church—not content with defending it (claiming, e.g., they are teaching 'the old truth' in 'a new way'), they launch vicious attacks against those who insist on taking the Christian doctrine from Scripture, on teaching the doctrina divina; they denounce the absolute dependence on Scripture as 'intellectualism,' 'Biblicism,' 'Buchstabentheologie,' 'mechanical treatment of Scripture,' treating it as 'a manual of dogmatic statutes,' 'a codex of laws fallen from heaven,' 'a paper pope,' etc. They cannot find invectives enough to apply to theocentric theology....Romish theologians have ridiculed the idea as though the Church gets its doctrine from 'paper' and 'parchment.' They did that in the interest of the principle of the Ego of the Pope is the source and norm of Christian doctrine. The Reformed 'enthusiasts,' in like manner, berated Luther's firm adherence to the Word of Scripture as dead Buchstabentheologie (literalism) and unevangelical Christianity. Their aim was to clear the way of the 'Holy Spirit' who does not need a 'vehicle' (vehiculum, plaustrum) and finds the use of it beneath His dignity. But since it is the way of God's Holy Spirit to use a 'vehicle,' namely, the means of grace, they were in reality—whether they were conscious of it or not—enthroning in God's Church their own spirit, which was supposed to deal with the Holy Ghost immediately. And that is exactly the aim of the moderns." (pp. 62-63)
"It is certainly a strange aberration to hold that teaching the divine truths directly from Scripture produces mere historical faith, merely an intellectual apprehension, and involves a 'mechanical infusion of supernatural truths.'—Note, in passing, the conceit of the Ego theology. Most men will agree with us when we say: If the written Word of the Apostles and Prophets of Christ cannot win the hearts of men, cannot establish the 'psychological contact,' much less will that word do it which modern theologians have evolved out of their 'experience.' Let the Ego theologians study the forceful words which Luther (in the Smalcald Articles) addressed to all 'enthusiasts': 'All this is the old devil and old serpent, who also converted Adam and Eve into "enthusiasts," and led them from the outward Word of God to spiritualizing and self-conceit, and nevertheless he accomplished this through outward words. Just as also our "enthusiasts" [at the present day] condemn the outward Word, and nevertheless they themselves are not silent, but they fill the world with their pratings and writings, as though, indeed, the Spirit would not come through the writings and spoken Word of the Apostles, but [first] through their writings and words He must come' (Trigl., 495, 5-6)"
"The entire terminology of the theologians who would procure the Christian doctrine from their own heart moves in the sphere of self-deception, and that means in the sphere of untruthfulness. An examination of the pertinent vocabulary will expose the deception lurking in these phrases." (p. 66)
"a. It is sheer delusion to make the Christian experience take the place of Scripture. It is a delusion, because without Scripture there can be no Christian experience." (p. 66)
"...the Christian experience of sin and grace is wrought solely through God's revelation in His Word, in no way through an immediate operation of God or through God's operation in the realm of nature and of history. To the extent that men—'laymen' or 'theologians'—separate themselves from Holy Scripture as God's own Word, addressed to us, to that extent they are cut off from the Christian 'experience.' Men deny this and assert that God powerfully influences our lives through certain occurrences in nature and certain events in history. We answer that God certainly makes use of these events—makes use of them to direct man's external attention to the proclamation of the Word of Christ. But that experience of sin and grace whereby man becomes a Christian and remains a Christian is effected only through the teaching of the divine Word, whether Scripture is directly quoted or not....For 'how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?...So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.' (Rom. 10:14-17)" (p. 68)
"b. Again, the modern theologians are dealing with a delusion when they refuse to derive Christian doctrine from Scripture but make 'faith' or the Christian 'faith consciousness' supply it. To be sure, there is a Christian faith consciousness, and out it the Christians speak and teach. But this Christian faith has its being exclusively in the Word of the Apostles (John 17:20). The Christian faith knows nothing but God's Word." (pp. 68-69)
"...it is due to an astounding aberration of the human mind that men can assert that 'doctrine' or the 'communication of doctrine' is not a 'prime' concern of the Christian religion; we cannot comprehend how they can claim in all seriousness that what is to be preached is not 'doctrine,' but 'faith,' arguing that only in this way 'a living Christianity can be produced' and 'dead orthodoxy,' 'intellectualism,' warded off. The stubbon fact is that from its very beginning the Christian religion dealt with doctrine and the impartation of doctrine....the entire Old Testament was written, as the Apostle Paul assures us, for our learning, eis ten hemeteran didaskalian (doctrine), Rom. 15:4, and is profitable pros didaskalian (doctrine), 2 Tim. 3:16." (p. 70)
"When in the fulness of time the Son of God appeared in the flesh and walked here on earth, He engaged in teaching." (p. 70) Cited: Luke 5:3; Matt. 5:2; Luke 4:15; Matt. 4:23; Acts 1:3.
"...before His ascension He gives His Church the commission to teach all nations to the Last Day." Matt. 28:20. (p. 70)
"And the Apostles executed this commission" and told their "successors in the ministry that it must be their chief business." (p. 70). Cited: Acts 20:20, Acts 20:27; 2 Tim. 1:13; Titus 1:9; 2 Tim. 2:2; 1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 3:16; Col. 3:16; 2 Thess. 2:15; Acts 2:42; 2 John 9-11.
"c. The moderns are deluding themselves when they imagine that the 'regenerate Ego' or the new man in the theologian can and will serve as the source of Christian doctrine....The new man in the theologian has too much sense for that. He knows Scripture to be the Word of God, subjects himself to it unconditionally, regulates and forms his thoughts and judgments according to the 'It is written,' and with Luther submerges all thoughts that emerge in his old Adam contrary to Scripture." (p. 71)
"d. It is hard to understand how men can make themselves believe that in ascertaining the Christian doctrine one must look not so much to the words (usually they say 'the letter') of Scripture as rather to the 'content,' the import. Here we have one of the many catch phrases which despite their inanity endure from generation to generation. It is a formula which requires us to perform a logical and psychological impossibility. You cannot understand the content of a message without the words that express that message." (p. 72)
"e. The contention, finally, that because of the 'historical character' of the Christian religion the philosophy of history must determine the Christian doctrine is not in accord with the facts of history." (p. 73)
"...here is another historical fact with which the philosophy of history must deal: 'the revelation of salvation' has been completed with the Word of Christ, which have in the Word of His Apostles. It is so fully finished and closed that all subsequent history cannot change that in the least." (p. 73)
"Moreover, by making the 'philosophy of history' a source and norm of the Christian doctrine, they are infringing on the authority of Christ: Christ in His Word is the one and only Teacher (eis ho didaskalos) in the Church to the end of days (Matt. 23:8; Matt. 28:19-20; John 8:31-32; John 17:20)." (p. 73)
"The conviction that Holy Scripture is God's own Word and the sole source of the divine doctrine, produces these three chief virtues in the theologian: (1) He will despair of his wisdom and approach Scripture with the humble spirit that prays: 'Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth' (1 Sam. 3:9). (2) He will not seek other textbooks of the Christian doctrine, but will receive the doctrine revealed in Scripture by faith, the only medium cognoscendi of the divine doctrine, and faithfully teach it; he will pray God to keep him from ixing the chaff of his own foolish thoughts with the wheat of the divine thoughts (Jer. 23:28). (3) He will through the grace of God have the courage and strength to demand exclusive authority for the doctrine taken from Scripture as being God's own doctrine and thus do his part to check the ravages of indifferentism, doctrinal chaos, and confusion." (p. 75)