"...the doctrine of Law and Gospel and in particular of the difference between Law and Gospel—a doctrine which Luther and the old thelogians treated most thoroughly—has practically disappeared from modern theology....It does not surprise us that modern theology would have no use for the distinction between Law and Gospel. That idea is the inevitable result of the denial of the satisfactio Christi vicaria, which characterizes modern theology. Certainly, if God did not fully reconcile mankind unto himself through Christ's vicarious satisfaction, if Christ has not, in our stead, fulfilled the requirements of the Law which binds mankind, and suffered its punishment in our stead, it necessarily follows that man must somehow by his own work and his own virtues either effect his reconciliation with God or complete the reconciliation begun by Christ. That is just what modern theologians teach. The 'conservatives' among them, too, hold that the Savior's work of reconciliation must be supplemented by man's holiness. One of them states it thus: 'We are compelled to make the transformation of man a factor in the work of the atonement.' That does away with the difference between Law and Gospel. What we get...is a 'veritable hodgepodge'..." (pp. 76-77)

"This 'hodgepodge' is not a harmless matter. Scripture warns us that the commingling of Law and Gospel has fatal results. It definitely tells the sinner who is seeking remission of his sins and eternal salvation that he can obtain this in no other way than by completely eliminating the Law from his consideration and placing himself under the Gospel. This is God's method of forgiving sins and bestowing salvation: 'without the Law,' choris nomou (Rom. 3:21); 'by faith...without the deeds of the Law,' pistei...choris ergon nomou (Rom. 3:28); 'by faith in Jesus Christ,' dia pisteos Christou Iesou (Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:22); 'through faith,' dia pisteos (Eph. 2:8); 'through the Gospel,' dia tou evaggeliou (1 Cor. 4:15). All who refuse to eliminate the Law in the matter of obtaining grace and salvation remain under the curse of the Law, since the Law pronounces the curse on everyone who has not continued in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them (Gal. 3:10)." (p. 77)

"The Law curses everyone who has not kept it perfectly (Gal. 3:10; Rom. 3:9-19) and is 'the ministration of condemnation' (2 Cor. 3:9). But according to the Gospel, God does not impute to man the transgression of the Law (2 Cor. 5:19). This is 'the Gospel of the grace of God' (Acts 20:24), also 'the ministration of righteousness' (2 Cor. 3:9)." (p. 78)

"He who knows when and where to apply the Law, when and where to apply the Gospel, is indeed a Christian theologian." (p. 78)

"1. According to God's will and order, as set down in Scripture, thet knowledge of sin must be taught from the Law, for 'by the Law is the knowledge of sin' (Rom. 3:20), while the remission of sins, or justification, must be taught solely from the Gospel, for 'we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law' (Rom. 3:28)....It follows that the Law, by which the knowledge of sins is produced, must be preached to the self-righteous and secure sinners, to those who will not acknowledge that they deserve God's wrath and eternal damnation....The Gospel, on the other hand, should be preached to those whom the Law has humbled and who therefore are contrite and brokenhearted and poor in spirit (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18)." (pp. 78-79)

"2. The Law is the only source from which the Christian theologian teaches what good works are...[b]ut the Law cannot produce the works which are commanded by God and are good in His sight. [My emphasis.] The Christian theologian knows and ever bears in mind that only the Gospel can create in man the will and strength to do good works....Luther: 'The lawmonger compels by threats and punishments; the preacher of grace persuades and incites men by setting forth the goodness and mercy of God' (St. L. XII:318)." (p. 79)

"3. The Christian thelogian knows, too, that he cannot successfully combat sin by means of the Law. The Law can, indeed, check sin outwardly, but inwardly it only activates and multiplies sin....It is the Gospel alone which slays the sin in man." Cited: Rom. 7:5-6; Rom. 6:14). (pp. 79-80)

"According to Scripture, saving faith is faith in the remission of sins for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, faith in the grace of God, who justifies the sinner without the deeds of the Law, by faith. Scripture teaches that only he who through the operation of the Holy Ghost accepts this forgiveness, this justification, is a true believer, a 'believer' in the Scriptural sense of the term (Gal. 2:16: 'Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ'). Only such a one is a member of the Christian Church. Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ were added to the Church. (Acts 5:14). One who does not believe the article of justification by faith is not, as Scripture plainly states, a 'child of Abraham,' is not numbered among the believers, is outside the Christian Church (Gal. 3:6-10)." (p. 81)

"Luther puts it thus: 'This article [of justification] is the head and cornerstone which alone begets, nourishes, builds, preserves, and protects the Church; without it the Church of God cannot subsist one hour' (St. L. XIV:168)....The dogmaticians have called the doctrine of justification articulum omnium fundamentalissimum ['the most important doctrine']." (p. 81)

"...Scripture informs us further that faith in the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake presupposes and includes certain other doctrines. Scripture teaches clearly:

"1. That the knowledge of sin and of the consequences of sin, eternal damnation, is a prerequiste of saving faith." (p. 82)

"2. Scripture furthermore teaches very definitely that saving faith includes the knowledge of the Person of Christ; it knows that Christ is theanthropos, God and Man....The same is true of the Trinity. Because the unus Deus [one God] is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, faith in the three Persons is, according to Scripture, so closely interwoven that there can be no knowledge of the Son without the Father (Matt. 16:17: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven'; Matt. 11:27a: 'No man knoweth the Son but the Father'); there is no knowledge of the Father without the Son (Matt. 11:27b: 'Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him'); and there is no knowledge of the Father and the Son without the Holy Ghost (Rom. 8:15: 'Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father'; 1 Cor. 12:3: 'No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost'; John 16:13-15)." (pp. 82-83)

"3. The fides salvifica includes also the knowledge of the work of Christ. According to Scripture, Christ is the object of saving faith, not in so far as He is a Teacher of the divine Law, nor in so far as He is the 'ideal man,' the perfect Pattern of morality, but only in so far as He is the Mediator between God and men, who gave Himself a ransom (antilutron) for all (1 Tim. 2:5-6), the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). One who does not believe Christ's satisfactio vicaria ['vicarious satisfaction'] is not a believer in the Scriptural sense; he bases—tertium non datur—his reconciliation with God in some way on his own work and his own worthiness and thus eo ipso ['by that fact alone,' 'in itself'] excludes himself from the grace earned by Christ." (p. 83)

"4. Scripture teaches, furthermore, that saving faith is always faith in the Word of Christ, faith in the external Word of the Gospel which Christ commanded his Church to preach and to teach (Mark 16:15-16; Rom. 1:1-2). This external Word is both the object of faith ('Believe the Gospel,' Mark 1:15) and the means by which faith is created ('Faith cometh by hearing,' Rom. 10:17). A belief whose object is not the Word of Christ as we have it in the Word of His Apostles (John 17:20) and which is not the product of this Word, is according to the Scriptures a delusion, ignorance, and a human fabrication (1 Tim. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 2:1-5; 'faith in the wisdom of men'). The faith which is not based on the external Word is, as Luther puts it, nothing but an air castle.¹¹⁴" (p. 84)

Footnote 114, p. 84: "See the section 'Saving Faith is Trust in the Grace That is Offered to Us in the Gospel' in Vol. II, p. 446 ff.—The old distinction between the fundamentum sustantiale [Christ] and the fundamentum organicum [the Word of the Gospel] does not set up two separate and distinct foundations of faith, but simply emphasizes, as Hollaz points out (Examen, Proleg., C. 2, qu. 19), the all-important truth that faith can lay hold of Christ only by way of laying hold of the Word. The modern theologians who refuse to accept the Word of the Apostles and Prophets of Christ as God's Word substitute for the fundamentum organicum 'the Person of Christ,' 'the living Christ,' etc., as the foundation of faith. But he who by-passes Christ's words also misses the 'living Christ.'"

"True, there are children of God within those communions which officially reject the external Word of Christ as the medium of the forgiveness of sins; but that is due solely to the fact that there are always those who in spite of the official teaching of their Church base their faith on the written Word." (p. 84)

"5. Scripture teaches, finally, that the denial of the bodily resurrection of the dead and of the eternal life subverts the Christian faith." Cited: 1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; 1 Cor. 15:12; 1 Cor. 15:34; Matt. 22:29. (p. 85)

This further division of the fundamental doctrines is not an invention of the orthodox dogmaticians to plague the theologians. It is theologically correct and extremely practical. To illustrate, in the controversies between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church, one of the disputed questions was whether Baptism and the Lord's Supper belong to the foundation of the Christian faith. Scripture has decided this question. Baptism and the Lord's Supper certainly do belong to the foundation of the Christian faith, together with the Word of the Gospel, for Baptism is given 'for the remission of sins' (Acts 2:38), and in the Lord's Supper Christ's body and blood are imparted as 'given for you' and 'shed for you for the remission of sins' (Luke 22:19-20; Matt. 26:26-28). The promise and offer of forgiveness of sins, which is the foundation of the faith, is contained also in the Sacraments. Hence the doctrines of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are certainly fundamental doctrines.—But why do we call them articuli fundamentales secundarii ["secondary fundamental articles"]? A man may, through ignorance of the nature and benefit of the Sacraments, lack that foundation of his faith which the Sacraments supply, but still have the true faith in the forgiveness of sins if he trusts in the Word of the Gospel, as heard or read. The reason is that the Gospel Word give the full remission of sins gained by Christ, and Baptism and the Lord's Supper give the same grace only in another and in a particularly consoling way (verbum visible ["visible Word"] - applicato individualis ["individual application"]). The Christian who does not make right use of the Sacraments, but trusts in the Gospel, has the true saving faith though he lacks the additional support for his faith which God has provided in the Sacraments." (p. 86)

[Footnote 120, p.86: "This is the case with the children of God in the Reformed bodies, who, misled by their teachers, fail to use Baptism and the Lord's Supper as divinely appointed means of justification. Believing the Gospel, they have the full forgiveness of their sins, full salvation. Both Luther...and the Preface to the Book of Concord...call attention to this."]

"Baptism and the Lord's Supper, important as they are, do not have the same importance and necessity as basis of faith as the Word in the form of the Gospel and are therefore appropriately called secondary fundamental articles. The one is essential to faith, the other is intended to support faith. What is absolutely necessary is the hearing of the Word." (p. 86)

"One who denies the communication of attributes (communicatio idiomatum) in Christ on the basis of the axiom that the the finite is not capable of the infinite (finitum non est capax infinitii) will, if he is consistent in his reasoning, also deny the communication of the Person of the Son of God to the human nature and thus deny the incarnation of the Son of God. However, we here meet with a 'felicitous inconsistency,' not only among laymen, but also among learned theologians. Since the Fall man's logic is, as we note again and again, in a bad way, and the heat of controversy plays further havoc with it. This prompted Luther to temper his judgment concerning Nestorius. He says: "Though it necessarily and logically follows from Nestorius' teaching that Christ is a mere man and two persons, Nestorius did not mean to teach that. The crude, unlearned man did not see that he was proposing the impossible when he honestly held that Christ is God and Man in one person and at the same time would not ascribe the idiomata of the two natures to the Person of Christ. He wants to hold the first statement as true, but he will not grant that which follows from that first statement. Thus he shows that he does not really understand what he denies.' (St. L. XVI:2230)" (p. 87)

"Synergism, the teaching that man possesses a facultas se applicandi ad gratiam ["ability to appropriate grace to himself"] (Erasmus' phrase), confirms man, as Luther points out, in his trust in his own ability in the matter of obtaining salvation and thus rules out the Christian faith in the remission of sins without the deeds of the Law. But at the same time Luther grants the possibility of a 'felicitous inconsistency' in the case of individuals. In theory, in their writings and disputations, they hold that man still possesses some spiritual powers; but in practice, 'whenever they deal with God, when they stand before Him in prayer, they completely forget their 'free will,' despair of themselves, and cry unto Him for pure grace only' (St. L. XVIII:1730)." (p. 88)

"...the 'felicitous inconsistency,' through which by the grace of God an erring Christian is kept from losing his personal faith, in no way extenuates the error, much less legitimizes it....Teaching in the house of God, the Church, is a most serious matter. The teachers of the Church must never forget:

"1. Scripture nowhere gives any man the license to deviate in any point from God's Word." (p. 89)

"2. Every departure from the Word of Christ, as found in the Word of His Apostles, is expressly designated an offense (skandalon poiein, Rom. 16:17: 'Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned')." (p. 89)

"3. Everyone who rejects the testimony of Scripture concerning one doctrine, actually, though he is not fully aware of it, invalidates the Christian principle of cognition. We must never forget that all articles of the Christian doctrine have a common source, Holy Scripture, and that the authority of Scripture applies with equal and undivided force to all doctrines." (pp. 89-90)

"4. Finally, we should always bear in mind that, like sin in the sphere of morality, so every error in the sphere of doctrine has the tendency to spread and to infect other doctrines with its virus. Unchecked, it will corrupt the entire body of doctrine. That is the meaning of Gal. 5:9: 'A little leaven leaventh the whole lump.'" (p. 91)

"Such doctrines are, for instance, the doctrine of the AntiChrist and the doctrine of the angels." (p. 92)

"...where Scripture has lost its authority, the source of Christian knowledge is stopped up, and there is nothing left for faith to build on. Though we know that these articles are not fundamental, says Baier, 'we must be at the same time on our guard lest by embracing and teaching error we rashly sin against the divine revelation and against God himself' (Compendium I, 65).

"This applies also, of course, to the historical, geographic, archaelogical, and similar statements of Scripture. While they are not the object of faith in so far as faith obtains the forgiveness of sins,¹³⁰ they cannot be denied without endangering saving faith." (p. 92)

Footnote 130, p. 92: "Cardinal Bellarmine taught a grave error when he said: 'Catholics extend the object of justifying faith as far as the Word of God extends' (Lib. I, De Justif., c. 4. See Quenstedt, II, p. 362). That would make saving faith a work. Over against this error it needs to be stressed that the only object of the fides justificans is the promise of the Gospel, offering the remission of sins for Christ's sake. See the section 'The Sole Object of Saving Faith is the Gospel' in Vol. II."

"The principle that no doctrine can be universally binding until it has gained universal consent deposes Scripture as the source and norm of Christian doctrine." (p. 93)

"In our day some Lutheran theologians have set up the strange principle that any article may be treated as an open question, binding no one, so long as the Church has not decided the matter in the Symbols. That is in reality the same Romish error which Luther rejects in the familiar statement: "The Christian Church [therefore also the Lutheran Church] has no power to set up a single article of faith, has never done so, and nevermore will do it." (St. L. XIX:958). It is practically the position taken by the Dorpat Opinion of 1866. It is a plain disavowal of the Scripture principle.

"Correctly defined, open questions are such questions as inevitably arise in our study of the Scripture doctrines but are not answered by Scripture at all or at least not clearly. And Scripture enjoins us to let them remain open questions. If we presume to answer them and ask men to accept our opinion as divine truth, we would be rejecting those Scripture passages which forbid us to add anything to God's Word (Deut. 4:2; Deut. 12:32; 1 Pet. 4:11)." (pp. 93-94)

"Open questions may also be called 'theological problems' if such problems are meant as cannot be solved on earth because God has not given us the solution in Scripture. A theologian may with a good conscience reply to many questions with an "I do not know"—nescio." (p. 94)

Examples: "...how sin could originate, seeing that all creatures, including all the angels, were originally created 'very good.' Another open question: Is the soul of each individual created by God immediately (creationism) or mediately through the parents (traducianism)? In the list of problems which cannot be solved in this life the Cur alii, alii non ["Why some, not others?"] question occupies a prominent place." (p. 94)

"Now, since Scripture furnishes no information on these open questions and theological problems, it is foolish to spend much time and energy on them. We surely have enough to do if we study and teach what is clearly revealed in Holy Writ. If we do not make that our sole business, but take time to discuss useless questions, we are, as Luther points out, 'hindering the Gospel.' The great matters which should be man's sole concern are pushed into the background. And experience shows that the interest of the crowd is too easily won for human speculations; it will have its curiousity satisfied." (p. 95)

"The question has been raised whether such ecclesiastical terminology as expresses the exact sense of Scripture without employing the express words of Scripture may be termed a dogma. To put it concretely, Are the doctrines expressed the terms 'Trinity' and 'homoousia' (consubstantiality) dogmas of the church? We shall have to say with Luther: 'It is certainly true that in matters concerning God nothing should be taught except the Scriptures, as Hilary says in his De Trinitate. But that means only that nothing should be taught which is different from the Scriptures. It does not mean, and it cannot be held, that one cannot use more words or other words than those that are in the Scriptures. Especially in controversies, when the heretics opposed the true doctrine with all manner of sophistries and evasions and perverted the words of Scripture, it became necessary to comprise what Scripture says in many passages in a short word of summary and to ask them whether they held Christ to be homoousios; for that word expresses the true meaning of all those words of Scripture which they perverted.' (St. L. XVI:2212.)" (p. 99)

"Church Dogma and the Theological Disciplines. Theology is commonly divided into dogmatic, historical, exegetical, and practical theology. And it is the dogma, that is, the doctrine of Scripture, which stamps these various branches of theology as theological disciplines and unifies them. It is the function of historical theology not only to give a historically true picture of the events, but also to evaluate these established facts in the light of Scripture....Exegetical theology deals exclusively with the words of Holy Scripture. It is the divinely taught art which binds the teacher and the learner to the sense expressed in the words of Scripture and compels him to expose as false all interpretations contrary to text and content. Exegesis loses its theological character if the exegete does not adhere throughout to the 'Scriptura Scripturam interpretatur' ['Scripture interprets Scripture'] and 'Scriptura sua luce radiat' ['the Scriptures are their own light']. No extra-Biblical material, philogical or historical, may determine the exegesis. That holds true particularly with regard to historical circumstances. Interpreting the words of Scripture according to a 'historical background' not furnished by Scripture itself but, wholly or in part, by contemporary secular writers, is false exegesis. All the historical background necessary for the correct understanding of Scripture is given by Scripture itself. Practical theology is the ability to apply the pure Christian doctrine, learned from Holy Scripture, in the work of the public ministry...."

"From the foregoing it is evident that the dogma is the unifying core of the various theological disciplines. The dogma, the Scriptural doctrine, is the essential element in every discipline, which integrates all branches of sacred theology. The dogmatician must also be an exegete, the historian, and practical theologian; and likewise the exegete, the historian, and the practical theologian must also be a good dogmatician. Each must be well acquainted with the Scripture doctrine in all its parts.—in spite of the demand for an 'undogmatic' Christianity, we declare: 'Only dogmatics is edifying,' namely, dogmatics as doctrine divina revealed in Scripture, the only doctrine which may be taught in Christ's Church. In the Christian Church, doctrine is the all-important thing. The general orders issued by Christ (Matthew 28) read: 'Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' Let no minister of Jesus Christ, be he theological professor or pastor of a church, forget this." (pp. 100-102)

This purpose is stated by St. Paul when he says (1 Tim. 4:16): 'In doing this [taking heed unto the doctrine, performing the office of a Christian teacher] thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.' So also Jesus: 'Every scribe ...is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. 13:52)." (p. 103)

"In the Church only God's Word (logia theou) should be heard, and that for the purpose of saving men (1 Pet. 4:11; 1 Tim. 1:4; 1 Tim. 6:3)." (p. 104)

"The old theologians define the purpose of theology quite well when they say: 'The subject of the operation of theology is homo peccator [man the sinner] in so far as he is to be led to eternal salvation' (Baier, I, 40)." (p. 194)

"And this ultimate purpose of theology [finis ultimus], the salus aeterna, can be achieved in only one way. Eternal salvation is obtained only through faith in Christ, through faith in the Gospel of the grace of God in Christ, as we read in John 3:36: 'He believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.' Hence the intermediate purpose of theology (finis intermedius) is, primarily, the creation and preservation of faith in Christ. Rom. 1:5 names this as a finis theologiae. Paul received his apostleship 'for the obedience of faith.'" (pp. 104-105)

"Sanctification and good works, of course, is another objective of theology. Theology teaches the believers to 'be careful to maintain good works' (Titus 3:8)—not as though good works were the cause or prerequisite or means of obtaining the forgiveness of sins and salvation (those who teach such a thing are cursed by the Apostle, Gal. 1:8), but because good works are a result and effect of the faith which has obtained the forgiveness of sins and salvation without works." (p. 105)

"A word on church government in this connection. Schleiermacher states that one of the purposes, the final purpose of theology, is 'the government and rule of the Church.' We could subscribe to that with the understanding that it is God's Word alone that rules and governs the Church. The regulations made by smaller or larger church bodies, which concern the externals of their common work, ought not to be called 'means of governing the Church.' Luther: 'Christians cannot be ruled by any other means than the Word of God. For Christians must be ruled in faith, not by outward works. Faith, however, can come through no word of man, but only through the Word of God, as Paul says Romans 10:17: "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."' (St. L. X:406.)" (p. 106)

"If 'science' is defined as a 'systematized natural knowledge,' meaning a knowledge of nature and of man which is not derived from the revelation of Holy Scripture, but is obtained through human observation, then Christian theology is not a science. For neither nature, in all its wide reaches, nor the voice of conscience tells anything about the specific content of the Christian doctrine, about the Gospel of Christ. That is the clear teaching of Scripture (1 Cor. 2:6-16). The natural religion, the knowledge of God derived from what God has revealed concerning Himself in nature and in man's conscience, is not the Christian religion, but the religion of Law. That is the clear teaching of Scripture (Rom. 1:20; Rom. 2:14-15)." (p. 106)

"If the term 'science' denotes a certain knowledge, in opposition to mere opinions, views, hypotheses, etc., theology is the perfect science, the only reliable science on earth. All other sciences are based on human observations and human deductions, and in the nature of the case—errare humanum est—the information offered by philosophy, astronomy, medical science, etc., is more or less unreliable. But the Christian theologian gets his information from the Bible, which is God's Word, the depository of God's own observation, opinion, and doctrine. Such a science cannot contain any error—errare in Deum non cadit—and cannot give any unreliable information (John 17:17; John 10:35)" (pp. 107-108)

"An objection is raised here: Objective certainty does not guarantee subjective certainty. The teaching of Scripture may be the absolute truth, but it will always be doubtful whether one has correctly apprehended and understood Scripture....We reply: The faith by which the Christian theologian, just as every Christian, apprehends and knows God's own doctrine in Scripture, is not a knowledge or conviction gained by the use of his own natural powers (fides humana), but is a knowledge and conviction wrought by the Holy Ghost through the divine Word itself (fides divina); it is therefore a sure knowledge; it is absolute certainty. Faith is the product not of 'the wisdom of men,' but of 'the power of God' (1 Cor. 2:5); it is therefore, in contrast to worldly knowledge, the one certain knowledge, as Scripture itself declares (1 Cor. 2:12)." (p. 108)

"We prefer not to call theology a science because today an evil odor attaches to this term, due to its use in modern theology." (p. 109)

"A word on the rational proofs for the Christian religion, as employed in apologetics. The Christian apologist is in a position to show any rational man, particularly if he have a well-trained mind, that after all it would appear more reasonable to accept the claims of Christianity as true than to reject them as false. But he must ever keep in mind that his real business is not to demonstrate the truth of the Christian religion to the unbeliever, but to uncover the insincerity of unbelief, for all who reject Christianity do so, consciously or unconsciously, because of their evil will and not because of their pretended 'intellectual honesty.' So Christ declares: 'Men loved darkness rather than light....Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved' (John 3:19-20). There are no scientific reasons or rational proofs against the truths of Christianity." (p. 110)

"Scripture gives a clear and simple answer to the question concerning subjective certitude. Christ tells all Christians, including the theologians: 'If you continue in My Word...ye shall know the truth' (John 8:31-32). Christ here states two things. First, there is such a thing as Christian certainty, 'Ye shall know the truth,' and, second, that this certain knowledge of the truth (Wahrheitsgewissheit) is identical with continuing in the Word of Christ, believing His Word. Faith is certainty. And when we ask further how this faith, which continues in Christ's Word, is brought about, Scripture again gives us a clear and definite answer. It is the Word of Christ itself which works faith in the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:17: 'Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God'). The reason for this is that the Word of Christ, when we hear and read it and thus apprehend it with our mind, carries with it the power of the Holy Ghost. Our Christian faith, as Paul declares (1 Cor. 2:5), is not produced by, and does not stand in, 'the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.' So, then, it is the sure Word which produces the Christian assurance." (pp. 110-111)

"As Luther's axiom has it: 'Man is certus passive, sicut Verbum Dei certum est active [Man can become certain in a passive sense, in the same way that God's Word makes certain in an active way].'" (p. 111)

"Nothing in the world, nothing in us, can give us the needed assurance. Only the Word can do it. Says Luther: 'It is greater than a hundred thousand worlds, yea, greater than heaven and earth. That Word shall be my faithful counselor and sturdy tree to which I will cling in order that I may bear and stand it. If we do not cling to that tree, our nature is much too weak to bear the burning hatred and envy of the world and to withstand the crafty plots and fiery darts of the devil.' (St. L. XIII:2621.) Recall once more Luther's remarks on 2 Samuel 23: God's Word alone makes certain, certum est active; man, however, is made certain by God's Word, he is certus passive; but so certain that 'the heart in proud confidence laughs to scorn all that spells doubt and fear, ire and wrath, for it knows that the Word of God cannot lie' (St. L. III:1887)." (p. 118)

"With our old theologians we call the good works the testimonia Spiritus Sancti externa in distinction from the tesimonium Spiritus Sancti internum, which consists in faith in God's Word wrought by the Holy Ghost. The internal testimony of the Spirit and faith are one and the same thing. Cf. the fuller presentation in the chapters 'Faith and the Testimony of the Holy Ghost' and 'Justification on the Basis of Works,' in Vol. II." (Footnote 172, p. 120)

"The spirtual and intellectual collapse of the theology of self-certainty, of experience, etc., is inevitable, because this theology does not take a believing but a critical attitude toward God's Word, that is, toward God Himself. This critical attitude is its raison d'etre. Because the experience theology rejects Scripture as the infallible Word of God, it has taken its stand on the 'religious experience' of the theologizing subject and assumes the right to examine and criticize Holy Scripture. While Christ says 'I have given them Thy Word' and certifies this Word as the truth: 'Thy Word is truth' (John 17:14-17), the experience theologians, from the extreme left to the extreme right wing, declare either openly or subtly, but unisono: They Word is not the truth; it is mixed with error. And while Christ instructs His Church to take its stand on His Word for the purpose of gaining the knowledge of the truth, and thus be delivered from all subjectivism, particularly also from the subjectivism of the theologians, the experience theology directs the Church to free itself from the Word of Christ, given the Church, and retreat into the 'impregnable fortress' of the self-consciousness of the Christian subject. It goes so far in its censure as to charge that those theologians bring disaster upon the Church who, like the Early Church, the Church of the Reformation, and 'especially the old dogmaticians,' make Holy Scripture, and not 'experience,' the source and norm of Christian doctrine. Yes, it goes so far as to claim that such theologians do not foster a 'living Christianity' and 'living faith,' but intellectualism,' dead orthodoxy. In their critical attitude the experience theologians set themselves above God's Word. It is Nietzsche's 'superman' in the sphere of theology. But we know from Scripture that it is a most dangerous thing for men to criticize the Word of God. God cannot brook criticism of His Word. Christ has given men God's Word that they should believe. All who criticize it instead of believing it call down upon themselves the judgment of which Christ speaks Matt. 11:25: 'Thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent and has revealed them unto babes.' They become incapable of knowing the truth. The Word of God has a twofold effect on man. Primo loco, it illumines; secundo loco, it blinds. Whoever, through the power of the Holy Ghost, operating in the Word, receives it not as the word of man, but, as it is in truth, the Word of God, as the Thessalonians did (1 Thess. 2:13), him it illumines; whoever opposes it with the criticism of his Ego, him it blinds." (pp. 124-125)

"Luther opposed subjectivism in whatever from it appeared. Thus he warned against making true faith, wrought by the Holy Spirit, the foundation of certainty and thereby founding faith on faith. Luther calls subjectivists 'idolatrous, apostate' Christians. He writes: 'It is certainly true that one should have faith for Baptism...but one is not to be baptized on his faith. There is a very great difference between having faith and relying on one's faith and thus being baptized on it. Whoever is baptized on his faith is not only uncertain, but an idolatrous, apostate Christian, for he trusts and relies on what is his, namely, on a gift given him of God, and not alone on God's Word, just as another trusts and relies on his strength, wealth, power, wisdom, sanctity, which indeed also are gifts, given him of God.' (St. L. XVII:2213)" (pp. 126-127

"...the Ego theology always covers its wickedness with the cloak of piety. The 'enthusiasts' of the 16th century would not have won so great a following if they had openly declared that their vagaries were the product of their human Ego. But they labeled them as products of the Holy Spirit. And they shed, as Luther on occasion remarks, 'troughs of tears' as evidencing their piety....In the same manner, Schleiermacher and his followers speak of the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject, of the regenerate Ego, of the Christian experience, etc. And though they reject Scripture as the Word of God and deny the satisfactio vicaria, they talk about the great progress of exegesis and a deeper comprehension of the meaning of Scripture. All this is deceptive, apt also to deceive 'the simple' (Rom. 16:18)." (pp. 127-128)

"This unchristian and pernicious theology is not restricted to Germany; here in the United States, too, it dominates practically the entire Protestant theology. Here in the land of the Reformed sects, it has found a most congenial environment. Zwingli and Calvin, teaching the immediate operation of the Spirit, represented in principle the I theology. Owing to the powerful influence of Luther this theology did not attain its full growth in those days. But it is not surprising that when Luther's influence had waned at the beginning of the 19th century, Schleiermacher and his Reformed-pantheistic theology should find admirers and adherents in this country, even though it was criticized in some details. The situation at present is this, that all our large universities, with the partial exception of Princeton, stand for the theology of the self-consciousness, if they deal with theology at all. Some time ago we reported on an 'organization of laymen,' set up for the purpose of defending the Christian fundamentals. These laymen charge that the universities and most theological seminaries have been training a generation of preachers who deny these fundamentals. They specify that these preachers have substituted for the divine authority of Scripture the consciousness of the individual and for the vicarious satisfaction of Christ moral endeavors conforming to the example of Christ, the ideal man. Whether this 'organization' of laymen will check the destructive flood, only the future will show.—In our church body—the Synodical Conference—there has been up to now, thanks be to God, no need of organizing the laymen against the pastors. Among the thousands of our pastors there is to our knowledge not a single one who questions the inspiration of Scripture and, as a result, would be forced to espouse the Ego theology. But we must never overlook the danger threatening us from our American surroundings." (pp. 128-129)

"In accord with its priciple of continuity in revelation, modern theology holds that development in doctrine is essential to a living and dynamic Christianity. Also within the Lutheran Church of America men had gone in for the further development of the Lutheran doctrine.

"There can be no development of the Christian doctrine, because the Christian doctrine given to the Church by the Apostles is a finished product, complete and perfect, fixed for all times. It is not in need of improvement and allows no alteration. Christ's mandate (Matt. 28:18-20) extends over the entire New Testament era to Judgment Day. According to this mandate the Church is to teach the nations all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. And Christ declares further that the Church has His doctrine in the doctrine of his Apostles when He declares (John 17:20) that all members of His Church to the Last Day will believe on Him through the Word of the Apostles. The Apostles, too, insisted on the finality and immutability of their doctrine. Paul exhorted the churches to retain the doctrine which they had received from him. 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle' (2 Thess. 2:15). And this injunction was addressed not only to the Apostolic Church, but to the Church of all times. That is evident from the passages in which Paul expressly refers to the future. 'After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them' (Acts 20:29-30). 'In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils' (1 Tim. 4:1; also 2 Tim. 3:1-5). Paul left no room for an interim theology. 'Keep this commandment...until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Tim. 6:14-15; 2 Tim 4:1-5; See also 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Paul's doctrine is the immutable divine truth; so much so that Paul pronounces a curse upon everyone who dares to change his Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9; Gal. 5:12). Because the Apostolic doctrine is immutable, Paul commands the Christians to avoid all who teach otherwise (Rom. 16:17) and to regard them as bloated babblers and ignoramuses (1 Tim. 6:3-4).—The theologians of our day and age should note that Paul maintains the perfectoin of the Apostolic doctrine especially over against those who claim to possess higher philosophical knoledge and deeper spiritual insights and presume to supply alleged deficiencies in the doctrine of Christ. He declares that those who believe the doctrine of Christ, as proclaimed by the Apostles, 'are complete in Him.' 'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit.... And ye are complete in Him' (Col. 2:7-10; also Col. 2:16-20)." (pp. 129-130)

"The advocates of the docttrinal development theory appeal to the fact that the Church in the course of time found it necessary, as new errors arose, to give expression to the Christian doctrine in such new formulations as homoousios, theotokos, homo mere passive se habet [man is merely passive]. The point is not well taken. These new formulations did not develop or change the Christian doctrine. On the contrary, they maintained the old doctrine against new errors; employing them, thet Church continued in the Word of Christ (John 8:31). Luther proves conclusively that the old 'chief councils' with their homoousios, theotokos, etc., did not make new doctrines, but simply confessed the doctrines which, on the basis of Scripture, Christendom had believed from the very beginning.¹⁸⁴ Nor did the Reformation in any way develop the Christian doctrine. It added nothing; it only extricated the old doctrine of Scripture out of the rubble of popish doctrines of men and again taught and confessed the old doctrine." (pp. 131-132)

Footnote 184: "In his treatise On the Councils and Churches he writes: 'This, then, was the purpose for which the four chief councils were held. The first, at Nicea, defended the deity of Christ against Arius; the second, at Constantinople, defended the deity of the Holy Ghost against Macedonius; the third, at Ephesus, defended the one person of Christ against Nestorius; the fourth, at Chalcedon, defended the two natures in Christ against Eutyches; but they did not thereby establish any new articles of faith. For these four articles are established far more abundantly and powerfully in St. John's Gospel alone, even though the other Evangelists and St. Paul and St. Peter had written nothing about them, though all these, together with the Prophets, teach them and testify mightily to them. These four councils the bishops of Rome, according to their decree, hold to be like the four Evangelists, as though these matters, together with all articles of faith, did not stand far more richly in the Gospels, and as though the councils had not taken them from the Gospels; so finely do these asses of bishops understand what the Gospels and the councils are. And if these four chief councils do not intend to make or establish anything new in the way of articles of faith, and cannot do so, as they themselves confess, how much less can such power be ascribed to the other councils, which must be held of smaller account, if these four are to be called the chief councils.... And if they do establish new things with regard to faith and good works, be assured that the Holy Spirit is not there, but only the unholy spirit and his angels.' (St. L. XVI:2248 f.)" (pp. 131-132)

"When the theologian accepts and regards as Christian doctrine what the human Ego, his own or that of other men, has produced, he has become the slave of men, Under the watchword 'academic freedom' our age demands for the theologians freedom from the bondage of the Word, Holy Scripture, 'submission to the letter,' 'shameful academic coercion,' 'legalism,' etc. But this is the liberty of the flesh, the license demanded by the 'superman,' who sets himself above God's Word and will.

"The following considerations will set forth the monstrosity of the universal demand for theological freedom.

"1. Until the end of time the Christian Church has but one Teacher, Jesus Christ. 'One is your Master (didaskalos), even Christ, and all ye are brethren. One is your Master (kathegetes), even Christ' (Matt. 23:8, Matt. 23:10). What He Christ, has commanded all his disciples, they are to teach all men to the end of time (Matt. 28:20). Even though Christ in the state of exaltation has withdrawn His visible presence from the Church, He is and remains the one true Teacher of His Church; through His Word, which He gave the Church in the Word of His Apostles, He teaches the Chruch to the end of time (John 8:31-32; John 17:20)....

"2. The Christians are commanded by Scripture to hear only such preachers as speak out of the mouth of the Lord—in our day that means: out of Holy Scripture—and not out of their own spirit (Jer. 23:16: 'They speak a vision of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord'; Jer. 23:31). It is a clear command and repeated again and again. The Christians must deny the greeting of Christian fellowship to all those who do not bring the doctrine of Christ (2 John 7-11), must regard them as bloated ignoramuses (1 Tim. 6:3-5), and avoid them (Rom. 16:17)." (pp. 135-136)

"In recent times it has almost become axiomatic to say that unqualified subjection to Christ's Word is incompatible with the 'inward freedom' which the theologian requires. They say if the theologian must regard himself as absolutely bound by the word of Scripture, Scripture would become for him a codex of laws fallen from heaven, a paper Pope, etc., in short, a return to Catholic authoritarianism. If the 'evangelical' spirit of Protestantism is to remain unhampered, it must abandon Holy Scripture as the source and norm of theology and rely upon the 'living,' 'ardent' Ego of the theologizing subject. That is the position taken by the entire modern theology; here all parties, from the extreme left wing to the extreme right, are in substantial agreement. It has been said that the right thing for present-day theology to do is to shed 'the armor of Saul worn by the old theology,' especially the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Then it will be able, like David, to 'leap over a wall.' The answer to this is, first, that according to Christ's view—which certainly should be authoritative—submission to God's Word and doctrinal freedom agree very well with each other, in fact, they go together, that is to say, only continuance in the Word of Scripture will lead to knowledge of the truth and theological freedom. Christ states this expressly: 'If ye continue in My Word, then...ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free' (John 8:31-32). Second, Christ points out, in this connection, that there are two classes of hearers of His Word: The first class knows and willingly accepts His Word as God's Word; the second class refuses to accept His Word as God's Word, but regards it as an oppressive 'external authority' and rebels against it." Cited and discussed: John 8:47, John 10:4-5, John 8:43, and John 6:43-44. (pp. 136-137)

"In dealing with an unbeliever we cannot begin with an attempt to convince him of the divine authority of Scripture. We must first bring him to the knowledge of his sins and to faith in Christ, the Redeemer from sin. We should preach to him on the basis of Scripture—without discussing the authority of Scripture—repentance and remission of sin. If a man has in this way—and there is no other way—become a Christian, a sheep of Christ's flock, a child of God, then he will know that the Word of Scripture is God's Word, just as the children of God among the Jews knew and received the word Christ spoke as God's Word. If the camel has first gone through the eye of the needle (Hofacker's phrase), that is to say, if a man has by way of the contritio {'contrition,' sorrow and sadness over sin} and fides {faith} wrought by the Holy Ghost become a Christian, he will refrain from criticizing anything in Scripture, even if he does not understand certain portions of it; the truth of the entire Scripture is guaranteed to him by the authority of Him (John 10:35; John 17:14; John 17:17) whom he adores in faith as his Lord and Redeemer. That is the Christian attitude toward Scripture. Luther describes it thus: 'If you cannot understand how it could have been six days [at creation], then accord the Holy Spirit the honor that He is more learned than you. For you are so to deal with the Scriptures that you bear in mind that God Himself is saying this.' (St. L. III:21.) And this submission to God's Word is not an 'enforced' subjection to an 'external authority,' unbefitting the Christian, but a childlike, willing, glorious submission to God; even as the Christian in his entire life submits to God's ways and permits God to guide him." (pp. 137-138)

"If by system we mean an integrated, organized whole, the Christian doctrine is indeed a system. Inasmuch as the Christian is taken solely from Scripture, it forms a complete, unified, homogeneous whole in a twofold respect; namely, as to its source [formal principle] and its Leitmotif [material principle]. (1) Scripture does not contain varying human types of doctrine (e.g., a Mosaic, Johannine, Petrine, Pauline type), but presents the uniform theology of God, since it is divinely inspired and absolutely errorless. (2) Since the Christian doctrine is taken solely from Scripture, the doctrine of justification dia tes pisteos koris ergon nomou {through faith without the works of the law} is the central doctrine, of which all other doctrines are either antecedents (articuli antecedentes) or consequents (articuli consequentes). Such an integration and correlation of the Christian doctrines was not devised by Luther and the Lutheran dogmaticians, but is set down in Holy Scripture as a fact. When Paul asserts, on the one hand, 'I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God' (Acts 20:27), and declares, on the other hand, 'I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him Crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2), he thereby teaches that the forgiveness of sins gained by the reconciling death of Christ is the center of the entire Christian doctrine. Peter likewise declares that justification by faith in Christ is the central teaching of the whole Old Testament Scripture. He says: 'To Him [Christ] give all the Prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins' (Acts 10:43)." (pp. 138-139)

"...the close inner connection of the whole Christian doctrine is evident from the fact that the perversion of any part of the Christian doctrine will in the natural course vitiate the whole body of doctrine. For instance, ...if the metaphysical deity of Christ is denied, the satisfactio vicaria falls (Rom. 5:10; Rom. 8:32; 1 John 1:7), and if the satisfactio vicaria is denied, there can be no forgiveness of sins by faith without the deeds of the Law; no means of grace, means which ex parte Dei convey the forgiveness of sins and ex parte hominis require nothing but faith; no Christian Church, for the Christian Church is the communion of believers; no salvation, for salvation is obtained by faith in Christ." (p. 139)

"However, we prefer not to call the Christian doctrine a 'system,' because modern theology commonly uses this term in a sense in which theology definitely is not a system.

"If by 'system' is meant the logical arrangement of certain laws which have been derived and deduced from one fundamental principle by pure thought, in disregard of the actual facts (speculative system), then theology is definitely not a system....{In the Christian doctrine,} every addition and every subtraction is absolutely and expressly forbidden (Joshua 23:6; Matt. 5:17-19; John 10:35; John 8:31; Gal. 1:6-9). It is not the business of the theologian to deduce, through a process of thought, the Christian doctrine from some one fundamental principle or from some one fact, e.g., from the fact of regeneration, nor to construct it from the so-called 'whole of Scripture,' which is a logical monstrosity. His work is limited to drawing the Christian doctrine in all its parts directly from those Scripture statements that treat the respective doctrine (sedes doctrinae)." (pp. 140-141)

"We take the doctrines as Scriptures present them. Under this method, gaps (lacunae) remain in this life for our human understanding. Take, for example, the Scripture doctrines of salvation sola Dei gratia and damnation sola hominum culpa, a matter we have already discussed {Chapter 5, pp. 28-29}. Both doctrines are clearly revealed in Scripture. But whoever attempts to harmonize these two doctrines in the interest of a logical system will adulterate either the one or the other and will become either a Calvinist or a synergist. The attempts to remove the contradiction which reason finds in the Scripture statements on the Trinity have led to monarchianism on the one hand and to tritheism on the other. Most modern theologians have tried to unify 'rationally' what Scripture says concerning the person of Christ (verus Dei and verus homo). As a result they have rejected the 'two-nature doctrine' and occupy a position extra ecclesiam. Whoever seeks to 'unify' the theological knowledge over and beyond the revelation of Scripture forfeits eo ipso the knowledge which deserves the designation 'theological.'" (p. 141)

"It is God's ordinance that we continue in the Word of Christ, teach solely out of the mouth of the Lord, and not out of our Ego or the Ego of others(John 8:31-32; Jer. 23:16). The teaching that comes from any other source than the mouth of God is chaff among the wheat, a delusion and a deception, and cannot be tolerated in God's house, in the Christian Church. It is certain, then, that in theology there is no room whatever for human speculation or—and this amounts to the same thing—for the systematizing of theology in the interest of a rational comprehension of the truths of Christianity. Let us not attempt to use our own thoughts to fill the gaps which the revealed Word of God presents to our limited understanding." (p. 143)

Pieper discusses a theologian of his day named Luthardt, who claimed Luther "genetically developed" his body of teaching from the article of justification, but then the later Lutheran dogmaticians did not follow through on that commendable beginning. Instead, they (in Luthardt's words) "designated the Scriptures (in opposition to the Roman fundamental article of the infallibility of the Pope...) as unicum principium cognoscendi, from which the doctrines were not only proved, but also developed." Pieper comments: "It is a fiction that Luther and the 'later dogmaticians' are at variance. In the first place, what Luther says about the central position of the doctrine of justification, viz., that this article contains the sum of the whole Christian doctrine, that it illuminates all other doctrines and secures their integrity, etc., is exactly what the Lutheran dogmaticians say when, e.g., they relate all other articles to the doctrine of justification and describe them as articuli antecedentes and consequentes. And in the second place, Luther proclaims, if anything more forcefully, the very teaching which according to Luthardt distinguishes the dogmaticians from Luther, viz., that for them Scripture was unicum principium cognoscendi, not only the norm of doctrine but also the sole source of doctrine. Luther had no patience with those who by-passed Scripture and 'constructed' doctrines, nor did he 'construct' the articles of faith from the central article of justification, outside Scripture. Scripture is the only source of the Christian doctrine, says Luther." (pp. 145-146)

"...subjectivism supplants the sola gratia with the self-determination, the self-assertion, the self-decision, the human conduct, the facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, etc.; and, further, subjectivism substitutes for the sola Scriptura the 'pious' self consciousness, the religious experience, the religious cognition, the 'faith,' etc., of the theologian. Not only is this a revolving about one's own axis, an unscientific and stupid procedure, but its result is uncertainty of salvation and uncertainty of the truth. On that account Luther fought so relentlessly for the sola gratia and the sola Scriptura both against Rome and the Reformed 'enthusiasts.'" (p. 149)

"Among the old Lutheran theologians some favor the synthetic, others the analytic method. Flacius holds that 'theology is most fittingly presented per synthesin'; Baier on the other hand, asserts that 'the parts of the revealed theology should be grouped iuxta ordinem analyticum.' In arranging the subject matter the synthetic method proceeds from cause to effect or by composing the whole from the given parts. The analytical method, however, proceeds from effect to cause or seeks to derive the whole from a particular part, e.g., from the purpose (finis).

"Applied to theology, the synthetic method treats first of God, the source of all things, including the salvation of man, then of the causes and means by which fallen man is led to salvation, and, finally, of the last things, concluding with eternal life. The analytic method begins with the last things, eternal life, next considers man, who is to be led to salvation, and finally presents the causes and means of salvation (Patris gratiosa voluntas, Filii redemptio, Spiritus Sancti gratia applicatrix, media gratiae, etc.). The later theologians preferred the analytical method. They held that since theology is a practical aptitude, the goal (finis: salvation) must be the first consideration; next, the subject who is to be brought to this goal (subiectum operationis: man); and, finally, the causes and means by which the subiectum operationis is brought to the goal.

"The synthetic method has been used, generally speaking, by the dogmaticians from Melanchton to Gerhard, the chief representatives of this period being Melanchthon, Chemnitz, Hutter, Gerhard, Brochmand.

"The dogmaticians of a later period used the analytical. Among them are Dannhauer, Friedrich Koenig, Calov, Quenstedt, Baier, Hollanz." (pp. 150-151)

"The important matter is not which method is employed in grouping the doctrines. The all-important point is that the theologian observe the principle of divine revelation and that he take all doctrines solely from Scripture, lest, a la Procrustes, he trim them to suit his opinion or the 'faith' of the theologian. The theologian must reject every method, by whatsoever name it may be known, which disregards the Word of Scripture and invents something. No questing method has a place in theology, either as to the content or as to the correlation of the doctrines. Only that method has a place in theology which as a matter of principle limits itself to arranging the matter given in the revelation of Scripture, as is done in the so-called local method, according to which all Scripture revelation on a certain doctrine is collocated at one place, locus (hence the several doctrines are fittingly called loci). And this is the underlying principle of the synthetic method." (p. 152)

"...Verbal Inspiration is not, as Kirn {a 'modern' theologian of Pieper's day} holds, a 'theory,' that is, the private opinion of the old Protestant dogmaticians, but the determinative opinion of Christ and His Apostles. It is therefore imperative for the sake of clarity in our theological instruction to divide the Protestant theologians of our day into two classes, according to their declared attitude towards Holy Scripture. The question is not whether they employ the synthetic or the analytic method, nor whether, within these methods, they use also the definition method or the causal method or both. The question is whether they still regard Holy Scripture as the Word of God and let Scripture alone be the source and norm of Christian doctrine, or whether they have already become so liberal that they no longer regard Scripture as the Word of God and the only source and norm of theology and have resolved to offer the Christian Church an Ego product." (p. 154)

"The theologian who rejects Holy Scripture as God's infallible Word and draws and regulates his teaching not from Holy Scripture but from his own Ego, acts contrary to the instruction of Christ to continue in His Word and the Apostle's denial of the licentia docendi {'permission to teach'—Scaer} to every teacher no consenting to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Such a one is suffering from delusion and ignorance." (p. 156)

From footnote 211 on page 156: "...Scripture does intend to be 'uniformly' God's Word—theopneustos, 2 Tim. 3:16; ta logia tou theou, Rom. 3:2; ou dunatai luthenai, John 10:35, the Old and the New Testament are 'uniformly' the Holy Spirit's Word, 1 Pet. 1:10-12."

"...dogmatics aims as a matter of principle at presenting...the knowledge of that faith which continues in the Word of Christ, in the Word of the Apostles and Prophets, in the Word of Scripture, of that faith which always speaks only vis-à-vis with Scripture. Faith without Scripture is a faith without foundation. It is not a faith that says, 'Speak Lord, for Thy servant heareth,' but is unbelief, for it 'believeth not the record that God gave of His Son' and thus 'hath made God a liar' (1 John 5:10)." (pp. 156-157)

At this point, Pieper states that what he has written "suffices on the external grouping of the Christian doctrines within the corpus doctrinae." He uses the rest of the chapter to expound upon the situation of his day in regard to confessional Lutheran theology, especially as it has been affected by modern theology that rejects the Scripture principle. He also comments favorably on several U.S. Lutherans outside the LCMS, like Adolf Hoenecke (pp. 171-178) and Charles Porterfield Krauth (pp. 179-180), and not so favorably on Henry E. Jacobs (pp. 180-181) for his synergism and for his rejection of verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

On modern theology in general, Pieper writes, "we dare not forget that the modern theologians who draw their teaching from their own consciousness instead of from Scripture are deadly enemies," who make these specific charges against Scripture theologians: (1) the Lutheran theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and those "repristanisation theologians" like Walther of the nineteenth century, wrongly identify Scripture and God's Word and, by doing so, (2) they harm the Christian Church by fostering "intellectualism" and "dead orthodoxy." (p. 158)

"Walther also exposes the abuse which modern theology practices with the so-called regenerate Ego or with the illumined reason. He says: 'Illumination does not provided reason with a light alongside of Scripture. Illumination rather consists in this, that through the working of the Holy Ghost the Word of the Prophets and Apostles has become its only light in matters of faith....In so far as it tries to argue against the articles of faith from its own premises, it is not regenerate, since the regenerate reason argues from the premises of God's Word.'" (p. 163)

"Regarding the attempt to harmonize theology and science Walther has this to say: 'We are certain that there cannot be or ever is a real contradiction between Christian theology and true science, science in abstracto. But we are equally certain that it is not nor can it be the task of a theologian to reconcile our Biblical theology and science in concreto. The charge is indeed valid that in our efforts to lead the present unbelieving generation back to faith we make no attempt to demonstrate to the world the harmony of faith with science. But we see no reproach in this charge; rather we glory in it, and we will not, by the grace of God, permit anyone to ever rob us of this glorying. For we are very certain that it is not possible to help the present apostate world with the lie that the divinely revealed truth is in perfect accord with the wisdom of this world; only the preaching of the divine foolishness, of the old unaltered Gospel, can help the world...(Rom. 1:16).'" (p. 164)

"The Lutheran Church in its original, unchangeable form of doctrine should therefore not act timidly among men, as though it had to apologize for still existing, but it should by God's grace step before the Church and the world with that confidence which the knowledge of the divine truth flowing from the continuance in the Word of the Apostles and Prophets inspires." (p. 184)

"...we must keep in mind that in its antithesis to Lutheran theology modern theology takes virtually the same position as Reformed theology. The fact is that modern theology is walking not in Lutheran, but in Reformed paths. The method of Schleiermacher, which would take the Christian doctrine not from Holy Scripture, but from the pious self-consciousness of the Christian 'experience,' is the method of Zwingli and Calvin, in so far as both taught an immediade operation of the Holy Spirit which is not bound to the written Word. The fact that Zwingli and Calvin did not consistently apply their unscriptural theological principle finds its explanation in part in the powerful influence of Luther, and in part in this, that in dealing with men they were forced back to the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace in contradiction to their real theological principle of an immediate operation of the Holy Ghost....What we object to in the Reformed theology is this, that in all doctrines in which it differs from the Lutheran Church and on which it has constituted itself as the Reformed Church alongside the Lutheran Church, it denies the Scriptural principle and lets rationalistic axioms rule." (pp. 185-186)

"Luther explains the necessity of the oratio {prayer} thus: ‘First you should know that Holy Scripture is a book such as will make the wisdom of all other books appear as folly, since no book teaches anything concerning eternal life but this one alone. Therefore you should straightaway dispair of your own wit and intellect, for with them you will attain nothing, but by such arrogance you will case yourself and others with you from heaven into the abyss of hell, as happened to Lucifer. But enter into thy closet and kneel down and implore God with all humility and earnestness that by His dear Son He would grant you His Holy Ghost, who will enlighten you, guide you, and give you understanding. As you observe that David in the 119th Psalm continually prays: Teach me, O Lord, make me to understand, guide me, show me! and many more such words, though he knew well the text of Moses and of many more such books, also daily heard and read them; still he wants to have the true Master of the Scripture at his side in order that he may not plunge into them wiht his reason and become master himself. For that is what turns men into unruly fanatics who imagine that Scripture is subject to them and easily attained by their reason, as though it were the fables of Marcolfus or Aesop, for which they need no Holy Ghost or prayer.’" (p. 187)

"Of the meditatio Luther says: ‘Secondly, you should meditate, that is, not in the heart alone, but also externally, work on and play the oral speech and the lettered words in the Book, read them and re-read them again and again, noting carefully and reflecting upon what the Holy Ghost means by these words. And have a care that you do not tire of it or think it enough if you have read, heard, said it once or twice and now profoundly understand it all. For in that manner a person will never become much of a theologian. He will be like worm-eaten fruit that drops from the tree before it is half ripe. Therefore you see in this Psalm how David over and over glories in the fact that he will speak, compose, declare, sing, hear, read, day and night and evermove; however nothing but the Word and precepts of God alone. For God will not give you His Holy Spirit except through the external Word; be guided by that. For He has not without purpose commanded to put things down in writing, to preach, read, hear, sing, recite, etc.’" (p. 188)

"Luther's explanation of the tentatio reads thus: ‘Thirdly, there is tentatio, affliction. This is the touchstone; this teaches you not merely to know and understand, but also to experience how right, how true, how sweet, how lovely, how mighty, how consoling God's Word is, wisdom above all wisdom. That is why you observe how David in the 119th Psalm so often complains about all sorts of enemies, about nefarious princes and tyrants, about false prophets and factions, whom he must endure because he meditates, that is, as stated, is occupied with God's Word in every way. For as soon as the Word of God blooms forth through you, the devil will visit you, make a real doctor of you, and by his affliction will teach you to seek and love God's Word.’" (p. 188)

“Finally, Luther describes how continuance in the Word of Scripture creates those attitudes which are essential for the theologian, namely, grateful delight in the written Word, serene confidence in his ability to teach young and old in all stations of life, lasting and increasing humility to check the pernicious, ever-menacing pride which causes so much havoc in man's own sould and among others. Luther closes thus: ‘Behold, here you have David's rule. If you now will study well according to this example, you will also sing and glory with him, “The Law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver,” Psalm 119:72; again (Psalm 119:98-100): “Thou through Thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies; for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers; for Thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Thy precepts.”’” (p. 189)