"Until the time of Moses, God called His Church into existence and preserved it by His oral Word (viva voce)." (p. 193)

"But after God had chosen to transmit His Word in writing, the Church of every age was strictly bound to the written Word of God. No man was permitted to add anything to the written Word nor to subtract anything from it. (Joshua 23:6; Deut. 4:2)." (pp. 193-194)

"In the time of the New Testament God added the writings of the Apostles to the books of the Prophets as the foundation of faith. Of the Church of the New Testament Paul says Eph. 2:20: 'Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.' The Scriptures of the Apostles are co-ordinated with those of the Prophets because it is one and the same Spirit of Christ speaking through both. 'Not unto themselves, but unto us, they [the Prophets, who had 'the Spirit of Christ'] did minister the things which are now [in the days of the New Testament] reported unto you' (1 Pet. 1:10-12). With the Word of the New Testament Apostles, God's revelation of the doctrine to His Church is entirely completed, for when Christ in His high-priestly pryear (John 17:20) says: 'Neither pray I for these alone,' the Apostles, 'but for them also which shall believe on Me through their Word, through the Word of the Apostles, He is thereby making the Word of His Apostles the basis of faith for the entire New Testament era." (pp. 194-195)

Only one question remains: Where does the Church of the New Testament find this Word of the Apostles with certainty? The Apostles themselves point us to their Scriptures. They declare, in the first place, that their written Word is in content identical with their spoken Word...[Cited: 1 John 1:3-4, 2 Thess. 2:15, Philip. 3:1]...In the second place, we see that the Apostles insisted already very firmly on the sola Scriptura. Even in the days of the Apostles the same false sources of knowledge and the same false norms were prevalent which later on and down to our day have plagued Christendom, such as spurious prophecy or 'spirits,' alleged word of the Apostles, or 'tradition,' alleged epistles of the Apostles. Over against all such claims Paul points to his written Word as the safe source and norm of the true Apostolic doctrine...[Cited: 1 Cor. 14:37-38, 2 Thess. 2:2]" (p. 195)

"The passage 2 Thess. 2:2: 'That ye be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled neither by spirit nor by word nor by letter as from us, as that the Day of Christ is at hand,' is important because here the Apostle sets his written instruction against 'spirit,' against the alleged word of the Apostle (tradition), and against the alleged epistle of the Apostle." (p. 196)

"The Scripture principle is rejected and, instead, the human Ego installed as teacher in the Church in the following instances:

"1. When natural reason is made the judge. By 'natural reason' we mean here man's natural knowledge of God and of divine things, which, without the revelation of Scripture, is limited to a knowledge of God's existence only and of the divine Law, as we have shown repeatedly, and this knowledge leaves man under God's wrath and curse, since man cannot keep the Law. Concerning the Gospel, which brings men the forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction and constitutes the very essence of the Christian religion, man himself knows absolutely nothing." (p. 196)

"However, the term 'reason' has a second meaning, in Scripture as well as in secular usage. It means also the mental or rational nature of man, that is, the capacity of man to receive the thoughts of another into the mind, the ability to perceive and think. This is the so-called ministerial use of reason (usus rationis ministerialis, organicus), as distinguished from the magisterial use of reason (usus raitionis magisterialis). The ministerial use of reason is, of course, legitimate in theology because the Holy Ghost works and sustains faith only through the Word of God as it is correctly perceived by the human mind....This usus instrumentalis of reason as a tool to hear, apprehend, and ponder the words of Scripture includes also the observance of the laws of language (grammar) and the laws of thinking (logic) as used in Scripture, for God has adopted the human tongue and the human manner of thinking. God has deigned, as Luther again and again reminds us, to 'become incarnate' in Scripture (Scriptura Sacra est Deus incarnatus)." (pp. 197-198)

"Luther again and again remarks, especially in his polemical writings, that everyone who blunders in grammar must necessarily also blunder in theology." (p. 198

"Quenstedt says...'We must distinguish between philosophy considered abstracte and according to its essence, and philosophy considered concrete and according to its existence in the person courrupted by sin. According to the former mode it never is opposed to the divine truth, for there is only one truth...harmonious in regard to the objects which are subordinate to it; according to the latter mode, however, it is, because of the ignorance of the intellect and the perversion of the will, frequently employed wrongly by the philosopher for distortion and vain deception.'" (p. 200)

"2. The Scripture principle is abrogated by substituting for it the regenerate reason, or, as it is also called, pious self-consciousness, Christian experience, Christian Ego, faith consciousness, faith, spirit, etc. We have already seen (p. 66 ff.) that all these sources and norms, when they are used alongside and apart from the Bible, are simply illusions." (p. 200)

"Walther unceasingly inculcated this truth. He wrote for example: 'Also the illumined and regenerate reason cannot be made the principle of knowledge alongside Scripture, co-ordinate with it, since the very essence of the illumined, or regenerate reason consists in this, that it makes the Scriptures and not itself the principle of knowledge in matters of faith (2 Cor. 10:5), not to mention the fact that on this side of heaven there is no man with a perfectly renewed and illumined reason (Gen. 18:10-15).' (Lehre und Wehre 13, 99)" (p. 200)

"3. The Scripture principle is rejected by the demand that the Christian doctrine must not be taken from the passages that treat of the individual doctrines, but from the 'whole of Scripture.' ...In fact we can obtain the whole body of the Christian doctrine only by taking each doctrine from those passages—considered of course in their context—which treat of that specific doctrine." (p. 201)

"4. The Scripture principle is denied by making the Church, the doctrinal decrees of the Church (councils, synods), the Pope, etc., the arbiters of truth. According to Scripture the Church has no doctrine of its own, no doctrine alongside and without Christ's Word. Christ is her eis didaskalos ['one teacher'], eis kathegetes ['one master'] (Matt. 23:8-10). The Church is commanded to teach the Word of Christ (Matt. 28:20). The Church has Christ's Word in the Word of His Apostles and Prophets (John 17:20; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 1:10-12), and in this Word the Church continues at Christ's express command (John 8:31-32; John 15:7: 'If ye abide in Me and My Words abide in you.')." (p. 202)

"The old Lutheran teachers also, by the way, refer to the fact that there is no consensus of the Church at all outside and alongside the Scriptures, not even if the consensus is limited to the first 500 years....The rule of Vincens of Lerinum that "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" ["what is believed everywhere, in all times, by everybody"] must be accepted as truth cannot be carried out in practice." (p. 204, 205)

"Roman theologians, particularly, appeal to Matt. 28:20 as proof that the testimony of the Church is a theological principle alongside the Word of Scripture. The argument runs thus: Here Christ promises His gracious and sustaining presence to His Church 'unto the end of the world'; therefore it were but reasonable to assume that the Church would not err in the proclamation of the truth which it is commissioned to teach. This argument has confused some. But the very passage cited shows the futility of the argument. Christ promises, in Matt. 28:20, the Church his gracious presence after He has directed it to teach only His Word: 'Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' Christ is present with His Church through His gracious revelation and His gracious help in His Word, which the Church is commanded to teach. In so far, therefore, as the Church teaches and confesses Christ's Word, it can, indeed, not err; in so far, however, as it teaches anything without and alongside Christ's Word, it is not only not infallible, but also certainly errs." (p. 207)

"5. The Scripture principle is abrogated and natural reason substituted through the appeal to private revelations, also called 'immediate revelations,' or 'new revelations (revelationes immediatae, revelationes novae)." (p. 207)

"In general, all who divorce the operation of the Holy Ghost from the Word of Scripture make private or immediate revelations their principle in theologoy. It is essentially correct to embrace them all under the general title Schwaermer, or 'enthusiasts' (fanatici, enthusiastae)." (p. 208)

"a. This includes first the Papists, in so far as they make the Pope an infallible teacher outside and beyond the written Word of God." (p. 208)

"b. All Reformed, like Zwingli and Calvin and recent Reformed theologians, such as Shedd, Hodge, and Boehl, inasmuch as they maintain that the Holy Spirit works with His saving opeation immediately, outside and apart from the Word." (p. 208)

"c. All modern theologians, in so far as they deny that the Scriptures are God's infallible Word and hence, as a matter of principle, make the 'pious self-consciousnesss,' the 'religious experience,' etc., the source and norm of Christian doctrine." (pp. 208-209)

"Our old theologians are right in calling attention, again and again, to the axiom which holds true of all pretended sources of theological knowledge, distinct and independent of Scripture: 'New revelations in regard to the Christian doctrine either coincide with the doctrine contained in Scripture, and then they are superfluous, or they offer something else than is recorded in the Word of the Apostles and Prophets, and then they are to be rejected' (Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; Luke 16:29-31)." (p. 210)

"6. The Scripture principle is denied by the demand that the Christian religion is to be interpreted 'historically.'" (p. 211)

"The neologists who misuse the term 'history' by opposing the Christ in His Word with the 'historical Christ' ought to be able to see that they are offering the Church a product of the human Ego. The actual 'historical Christ' is Christ in His Word." (p. 211)

"We have already heard the remark of Nitzch-Stephan: 'The fault [of the old dogmaticians]...lies in this, that they did not at all distinguish between the Bible and God's Word, or did so imperfectly.' (Ev. Dogmatik, p. 245)...But what modern theology so unanimously...stamps as a 'fault' in the Apostolic Church, in Luther, and in the old dogmaticians, that is the only correct position. It is what Scripture teaches of itself. Scripture teaches the identity of Scripture and God's Word in several ways." (pp. 213-214)

"a. The Scriptures of the Old Testament are quoted in the New Testament plainly as God's Word." (p. 214)

Examples: Is. 7:14 w/Matt. 1:22-23, Hos. 11:1 w/Matt. 2:15, Psalm 2:1 w/Acts 4:25, Is. 6:9-10 w/Acts 28:25-27, Psalm 95 w/Heb. 3:7-11, Rom. 3:2: entire written Old Testament scriptures are called the "oracles of God," John 10:35.

"There is another lengthy series of Scripture passages which must not be overlooked when the question is raised whether Scripture and the Word of God are one and the same or not. These are the passages which state that all the events in the world are directed by the Word of Scripture. All that has taken place and will take place, from the beginning to the end of the world, takes place because it is so written. Thus the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary occurred 'that (Grk. hina) it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet' (Matt. 1:22)." (p. 214)

Other examples: John 17:12, Matt. 26:54, Luke 24:44.

"b. The same applies to the writings of the Apostles of the New Testament. 1 Pet. 1:10-12 proves that these writings, too, were God's own Word. Peter first states concerning the Prophets of the Old Testament that they prophesied by 'the Spirit of Christ, which was in them,' of the grace that should come in the New Testament era, but then adds concerning the Apostles of the New Testament: 'which are now [in the New Testament era] reported unto you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.' It is here clearly taught that, like the Word of the Prophets of the Old Testament, so also the Word of the Apostles of the New Testament is the Word of the Holy Ghost. The objection that Peter here refers only to the preached word and not to the writings of the Apostles is not valid, since the Apostles expressly declare that they wrote the identical things which they preached. Thus the Apostle John (1 John 1:3-4): 'That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you...and these things write we unto you.'" (p. 215)

Also cited: 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 14:37, 2 Cor. 13:3, Gal. 1:8-9.

“The Scripture passages Speaking of inspiration contain the following truths:

“1. Inspiration does not consist in the so-called subject inspiration, inspiration of the matter merely, nor in the so called inspiration of persons, but it is verbal inspiration, suggestio verborum {‘furnishing the words’ - Scaer}, since the Scriptures, which are said to be inspired, do not consist of things or persons but of written words.” (p. 217)

“2. Inspiration does not consist in mere divine guidance and protection against error, but is a divine supplying or divine giving of the very words that constitute Scripture.” (p. 219)

“3. Inspiration covers not only a part of Scripture, e.g., the chief matters, the doctrines, and such things as were before unknown to the writers, etc., but the entire Scriptures. Every part of Scripture is inspired. That, and nothing less, is the meaning of ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.’...The real purpose of Scripture is indicated in passages like John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 1 John 1:4. Scripture is to bring us human beings to the knowledge of Christ and thus to salvation. But also the historical data which are found in Scripture (for with His Word God has entered the history of mankind), though mentioned only incidentally, are inspired and infallible, because they are a part of Scripture.” (p. 220)

“4. The statement of Scripture that inspiration extends not merly to a part, but to the entire Scriptures, together with the fact that Scripture does not consist of persons or things, but of words, declares at the same time that Scripture is perfectly inerrant in all its words and in every one of its words. That is the meaning of Christ's testimony to the Scriptures when He declares (John 10:35) concerning the use of a single word (Psalm 82:6; theoi): ‘The Scripture cannot be broken.’” Also cited: Gal. 3:16 with Gen. 22:18; Matt. 22:43-44 with Psalm 110. (p. 221)

“5. The inspiration of Scripture self-evidently includes also the impulse and command to write.” (p. 224)

This is said against the Roman theologians, whose reasoning goes like this: “The Holy Scriptures are really not a divine institution, since the mandatum scribendi {command to write} is lacking. But the holy father Pope, as the visible head of the Church appointed by Christ, is a divine institution in the eminent sense, and thus the supreme authority in the Church rests in the Pope, respectively in the tradition controlled by the Pope....Their concern is to have the Ego of the Pope acknowledged as the supreme authority of the Church.” (p. 225)

“...Modern theology has the same interest as Rome. According to its own declaration it desires freedom from Scripture as the only source and standard of theology and in place of Scripture would make the decisive factor in the Church, indeed not the Ego of the Pope, but the ‘experience’ or—what amounts to the same thing—‘the pious self-consciousness,’ the Ego of the theologizing subject.” (p. 226)

“A Bible in which the boundaries between divine truth and human error would forever be uncertain would indeed be a fitting controversial subject for theologians of the school of Lessing, but would certainly not be the Book of which David says: ‘The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple’ (Ps. 19:7), and: ‘Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path’ (Ps. 119:105). But all this talk about the relation of the Holy Ghost to the holy writers being left indeterminate in Holy Scripture is contrary to the facts in the case....The Scriptures define the relation of the Holy Spirit to the human writers of Scripture very exactly when, for example, they say that ‘the Lord’ or ‘the Holy Ghost’ spoke ‘by the Prophet,’ ‘by the mouth of David,’ ‘by the mouth of His holy Prophets’ (Matt. 1:22; Matt. 2:15; Acts 1:16; Acts 4:25; Luke 1:70), with the result that the Word spoken by them was not their word, but entirely God's Word, or the Word of the Holy Ghost, ta logia tou theou (Rom. 3:2). In exactly the same manner Paul expressly declares the Word he wrote to be God's Word, in distinction from the word of men (1 Cor. 14:37: ‘The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord’), just as he says of the Word he had spoken: ‘When ye received the Word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the Word of God’ (1 Thess. 2:13).” (p. 229)

“With regard to the relation of the Holy Ghost to the holy writers we shall therefore have to say: God employed the holy writers as His tools, or instruments, in order that men might have His Word fixed in writing. In order to express this relation between the Holy Ghost and the human writers, the Church Fathers as well as the old Lutheran dogmaticians call the holy writers amanuenses, notarii, manus, calami, clerks, secretaries, hands, pens, of the Holy Spirit. Philippi rightly calls the derision heaped upon these terms by the neologists 'senseless derision' (Glaubenslehre I, 177). For these terms are perfectly Scriptural as long as we observe the point of comparison (tertium comparationis), the mere instrumentality. The expressions state no more and no less than the fact that the holy writers did not write their own word, but God's Word, ta logia tou theou; and that is, as we have seen, the authoritative judgment of Christ and His Apostles. These terms should therefore not be subjected to ridicule but rather acknowledged as Scriptural.

“That in this relationship the writers were not lifeless machines, but living, personal intruments, endowed with intellect and will and equipped with their own distinct style (modus dicendi), is evident from the very nature of the case. For God did not first kill or 'dehumanize' Isaiah, David, and all the Prophets in order to speak or write through (dia) them, but He carefully preserved their lives and their genuine human way of expressing themselves in order that they might in their speaking be understood by men.”
(pp. 229-230)

“...both Church Fathers and dogmaticians decidedly reject any mechanical or external concept of the ‘dia,’ of the relationship of the writers to the Holy Ghost. The Church Fathers expressly repudiate the notion of the Montanists that the holy writers wrote in a state of trance.” (p. 231)

“Quenstedt (Systema I, 82 sq.), in explaining the pheromenoi {‘moved’} (2 Pet. 1:21), states very clearly in what manner the will and the understanding of the holy writers participated in the composition of Holy Scripture. The amanuenses participated not according to their natural will, according to which man is actuated by God in the natural domain; nor according to their regenerate will, according to which all Christians are impelled by God to do good works; but according to the extraordinary impulse, according to which they were impelled by the Holy Ghost in their special calling and office, namely, as Prophets and Apostles, to reduce God's own Word to writing (in literas redigere).” (p. 231)

"...whoever denies the inspiration of Scripture, i.e., denies that the Word of the Apostles and Prophets is God's own infallible Word, destroys, as far as lies in his power, the foundation of the Christian Church, because, according to Eph. 2:20, the Christian Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Nor dare we forget that everyone who denies the inspiration of Scripture eo ipso becomes a critic of Scripture and as a critic of Scripture—which as God's Word is not be criticized but believed—is subject to the divine judgment described in Matt. 11:25 {'Father...thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes'}." (p. 233)

"Among the arguments against the inspiration of Holy Scripture we note:

"1. The different style in the varioius books in the Scripture. {Pieper answers:}...the diversity in the style does not contradict inspiration but is demanded by it. God did not speak through one man, but through a number of them, each one of whom had his own distinnctive style, which God used in communicationg His Word. There is, to resort to more learned language, no human style in abstracto but only in concreto, that is, the style of individual persons. No man has ever observed a style which was severed from the person who used it." (p. 233)

"2. The appeal of the holy writers to their historical research has been advanced against the inspiration of the Bible... {Pieper answers:} This argument lies on the same plane as the one regarding the different styles. As the Holy Ghost employed the literary stule which the several writers possessed so He also used the historical knowledge which they had acquired by their own experience or by their own research or by communications from others." (p. 236)

“3. The variant readings (variae lectiones) found in the copies (apographa) of the originals (autographa) are said to disprove the doctrine of inspiration. Variant readings in the copies do exist. But, first of all, let us bear in mind that it is not fair to argue from the variant readings in the copies against the inspiration of the originals. We have never held that the copyists of the holy writings were inspired. Spelling mistakes or slips or attempted corrections in the copies have absolutely nothing to do with the inspiration of the originals....

“But now the objection to the inspiration of Scripture asssumes another form, namely, that an inspired Scripture becomes useless and should no longer be urged, since the presence of variant readings makes it, after all, uncertain which is the original Word of God....In spite of the variants in the copies of the Bible we have a reliable Bible text....With reference to the text of the New Testament (of which in particular the 'legion of variant readings' is asserted) we have two ways of knowing that in the copies of the Word of the Apostles or, what is identical with it, the Word of Christ, has been preserved for us.

“a. We know we have this Word a priori, that is, prior to any human investigation, on the basis of the divine promise. When our Savior says in His high-priestly prayer (John 17:20) that all those who will come to faith to the end of time will come to faith through the Word of the Apostles, He therewith promises us that the Word of the Apostles will be present in the Church to the Last Day...

“b. We reach the same result also a posteriori, on the basis of scientific investigation. Human scientific investigation establishes the fact that not a single Christian doctrine has been rendered doubtful in any point by the legion of variant readings....

“This, then, is the situation: God has arranged the Bible so that one and the same doctrine is set down in several, usually numerous places. That is also bourght out by the words of the Apostle (Phil. 3:1): ‘To write the same things [ta auta, one and the same] to you, to me is indeed not grievous, but for you it is safe.’ Now, if because of a variant we must relinquish a certain prooftext for a certain doctrine—which, by the way, is seldom the case—we have ample proof for that doctrine in other passages which have not been touched by textual criticism....To illustrate, in a dispute with Unitarians on the doctrine of the Trinity relinquish 1 John 5:7-8 as prooftext....That does not make the doctrine of the Holy Trinity doubtful in any way, since this doctrine is taught clearly—also with the co-ordination of the three persons in God—in such passages of Scripture as are not questioned by the critics, e.g., Matt. 28:19: ‘Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,’ and 2 Cor. 13:14: ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all.’” (pp. 237-241)

“4. The alleged contradictions in Scripture and erroneous statements in general are stressed particularly by the opponents of inspiration....{Pieper answers:} In recent years A.T. Robertson has written these apt words: ‘In explaining a difficulty, it is always to be remembered that even a possible explanation is sufficient to meet the objector. If several possible explanations are suggested, it becomes all the more unreasonable for one to contend that the discrepancy is irreconcilable....The harmonist has done his duty if he can show a reasonable explanation of the problem before him. It is to be remembered also that there is as much prejudice against the supernatural element in the Gospels as there is a favorable opinion for the accuracy of the narratives.’” (pp. 241-242)

“All objections against the inerrancy of Scripture disgrace the Christian, because they oppose a human judgment to Christ's judgment.” (p. 242)

“5. Furthermore, a whole series of real or merely assumed facts has been advanced against the inspiration of Holy Scripture, for example, inaccurate quotations from the Old Testament by the writers of the New Testament, insignificant matters unworthy of the Holy Ghost, solecisms and barbarisms, etc., also single passages, like 1 Cor. 7:12, and longer passages from Scripture.” (pp. 246-247)

Pieper regards none of the above as really very important, but deals with each at length in the rest of the chapter, pages 247-265.

"Christ and the Apostles taught the verbal inspiration both of the Old and the New Testament, a fact we have repeatedly demonstrated in defining Christian theology and particularly in the chapters {above on this page} 'Holy Scripture Identical with the Word of God' and 'The Verbal Inspiration of Holy Scripture.'" (p. 265)

"The Church Fathers, too, taught the Verbal Inspiration. That is so evident that Cremer raises the charge that 'they have the same doctrine of inspiration as the older Protestant dogmaticians (R.E., 2d ed., VI, 751)....

"Regarding Luther and the dogmaticians, modern theology generally acknowledges and deplores that they 'identified' Scripture with the Word of God, thus taking over an evil heritage from the ancient Church and unfortunately, passing it on, to the harm of the Church. (Ihmels, Zentralfragen, 2d ed., 56 ff. See above.) In order to gain a particeps criminis in nuce {'participant in crime in a nutshell'} in the Reformer of the Church, most modern theologians insist that one finds here and there in Luther a tendency toward a 'more liberal conception of Scripture.'...This assertion is in conflict with the historical facts, as the next chapter will show. As to the symbols of the of the Lutheran Church, it is generally admitted in our day that they presuppose Verbal Inspiration as an unquestionably established doctrine, since they use 'Scripture' and 'Word of the Holy Ghost' as synonymous terms. Augsburg Confession: 'Why does Scripture so often prohibit to make, and to listen to, traditions?...Did the Holy Ghost in vain forewarn of those things?' Trigl. 91, 49.)" (p. 266)

"When rationalism, which wielded a mighty influence after the middle of the 18th century, discarded the Christian doctrine in general, namely, the satisfactio Christi vicaria, it also discarded the inspiration of Holy Scripture....The whole theological activity of the rationalists consists in proving that Scripture, correctly understood, is nothing more than a sublime code of morals, exemplified in Jesus of Nazareth. 'The Reformer of the Church of the 19th Century,' Schleiermacher, did not, like the Reformer of the 16th century, lead theology back into Scripture, but into the morass of emotional rationalism. To him the source and determining norm of theology are no longer Scripture, but the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject, the Christian experience, etc. It is a fact admitted by all that the entire modern theology, liberal and conservative, practices theology according to the method of Schleiermacher, though there are differences among them as to what belongs to the 'pious self-consciousness.' Because it has not returned to the Scripture doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, modern theology stands outside the sphere within which the Word of Christ, which we have in the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets, is recognized as Christ's, that is God's Word. Whoever will not believe what Christ and the Apostles teach of the reconciliation of the world by the substitutional satisfaction of Christ will naturally also not believe what Christ and the Apostles say of Holy Scripture...

"We might summarize the position of modern theologians toward Scripture in these words: modern theologians refuse to believe what Scripture says of itself, but would determine the character of Scripture a posteriori, by way of human investigation and criticism. Applying this modus procedendi, they reach the conclusion that the Scriptures are not God's infallible Word, but a report, more or less divinely influenced, on God's revelation by word (account of the revelation). In this historical report, which originates in part with the Holy Ghost and in part with men ('Urgemeinde'—primitive Church, hence 'divine-human' report), errors are naturally not excluded. Hence it is said to be the office of modern theology, which possesses in a high degree a sense of 'reality,' to subject Scripture, in its contents and wording, to criticism, even though it has not yet succeeded in defining the boundaries between truth and error in the Bible. But as to the chief point they are agreed; Scripture cannot be regarded as God's infallible Word; Scripture, if regarded as the infallible Word of God, cannot produce 'warm-blooded' Christianity; the natural consequence of the old conception of Scripture is 'intellectualism.' When the modern theologians still speak of 'inspiration,' they do not mean the unique divine act by which He breathed His Word into the holy writers and made it the foundation of faith for His Church unto the Last Days (Eph. 2:20; John 17:20), but they take it to mean merely an intensified spiritual enlightenment of a kind which all Christians possess. As the illumination possessed by all Christians does not include perfect inerrancy, so neither did the intensified illumination of the holy writers make them inerrant." (pp. 268-269)

"Also most of the present-day Reformed theologians have given up the inspiration of Scripture. Well-known exceptions are Charles Hodge of Princeton; Wm. Shedd of Union Seminary, New York; Benj. B. Warfield of Princeton. Of the more widely known theolgians in Germany it is only Philippi who in the last years of his life returned to the Scripture doctrine of inspiration." (pp. 271-272)

"In the Roman Catholic Church some theologians of note have limited inspiration to the mysteries of the faith or the chief matters; concerning other matters, however, they have assumed a mere preservation from error. A few others have gone further and expressly admitted the actual occurence of errors." (p. 272)

“The Socinians and the Arminians assume errors in ‘minor matters.’⁸⁷—This would be the place to advert to the essential agreement of the ancient and modern ‘enthusiasts,’ the Quakers, and the like, with modern theology. Just like the modern theologians, the ‘enthusiasts’ refuse in the interest of their ‘inner life’ or their ‘immediate revelation’ to identify Scripture with the Word of God. Their talk of ‘spirit,’ of ‘inner light,’ of ‘immediate revelation,’ lies on the same plane as the talk of modern theologians aobut a ‘self-certainty’ of Christianity and its religion, a certainty which does not depend on Holy Scripture, but ‘rests in itself and is immediate truth’ (Erlangen theology). Again, when the ‘enthusiasts’ declare the ‘spirit,’ or the ‘inner light,’ etc., to be the ‘chief source’ or the ‘real source of the truth’ and acknowledge Scripture only as a ‘subordinate norm,’ this corresponds exactly to the position of modern theology, which likewise turns everything topsy-turvy in the Christian Church by casting aside Scripture as the source and norm of doctrine, withdrawing into the pious ‘self-consciousness’ of the theologian, the ‘experience,’ as constituting the allegedly ‘impregnable fortress,’ and from this vantage point correcting Scripture.” (pp. 272-273)

Footnote 87, p. 272: “Faustus Socinus says in his De Auctoritate Scripturae, c. 1, p. 15: ‘Certain things in Scripture—such as are of little moment—are in themselves plainly false’...”

“...Calvin, contradicting his direct statements that Scripture is written dictante Spiritu Sancto and that the holy writers must be called Spiritus Sancti amanuenses, occassionally speaks of the Evangelists as incorrectly quoting from the Old Testament. Here, then, there is an inconsistency on the part of Calvin.

“And, what is worse, it has little practical value when the older and the more recent Calvinists (Hodge, Shedd, Boehl, etc.) teach Verbal Inspiration and at the same time teach the doctrine peculiar to Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that the redemption which is in Christ Jesus does not extend over all men, but only over a part of mankind. It teaches with Calvin that the purpose of the written Word is not to lead all men to faith and salvation, but to harden the hearts of the majority of the hearers....Furthermore, the old and more recent Calvinists teach that those who are actually illuminated unto faith and salvation do not receive this illumination through the external Word, the Scriptures, but receive it without this Word, through an immediate illumination of the Holy Ghost. It is obvious that such teaching makes the truth that Scripture is God's inspired Word entirely worthless for practical purposes.” (pp. 274-275)

“The synergists, too—those that still teach the inspiration of Scripture—make this doctrine practically worthless. Because the synergists make the obtaining of God's grace dependent on an achievement of man (self-decision, self-determination, ‘different conduct’, lesser guilt in comparison with others), and because this required achievement is found in no man (Rom. 3:19: ‘That all the world become guilty before God’; v. 22: ‘There is no difference’), by their obstruction of the sola gratia raise as strong a barrier against the obtaining of God's grace as do the Calvinists by their obstruction of the universalis gratia. The Christian faith which is counted by God for righteousness is convinced that God justifieth the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). Whoever considers himself as being better before God, or less guilty than other men, is eo ipso excluding himself from grace (Luke 18:9-14; Rom. 11:22). A synergist can be saved, just like the Calvinist, only if he becomes inconsistent. As the Calvinists must forget their limitation of the universalis gratia, so the synergists must forget their limitation of the sola gratia if the truth that the Scriptures are God's own Word is to be any practical value for them. And here, too, this forgetting no doubt, occurs in many instances. It is solely the grace of God which saves from an error which is fatal in itself.” (pp. 275-276)

“Luther is horrified at people who dare to claim that Scripture is not entirely and in all its parts the word of God because the writers, such as Peter and Paul, after all, were men. Luther remarks on 1 Pet. 3:15: ‘But if they take exception and say: You preach that one should not hold to man's doctrine, and yet Peter and Paul, and even Christ, were men—when you hear people of this stamp, who are so blinded and hardened as to deny that what Christ and the Apostles spoke and wrote is God's Word, or doubt it, then be silent, speak no more with them, and let them go.’ (St. L. IX:1238)” (p. 278)

“Christ very definitely rules out the possibility of an error in Scripture when He says: The Scripture cannot (ou dunatai) be broken. Philippi had not yet reached the Christian attitude toward Scripture when he wrote: ‘ We would not like to say a priori with Calov that no error can have a place in Scripture.’ He had reached the attitude befitting the Christian when he retracted his statement in the third edition of his Glaubenslehre and declared Calov's a priori position to be the correct one. This a priori position is Luther's position. Luther has no thought of ascertaining the inerrancy of Scripture by human investigation (a posteriori), but before all investigation he is convinced that there can be no error in Scripture.

“Luther maintains this throughout. If there seems to be a conflict between Scripture and human science, he is firmly convinced from the outset that human science is in error and Scripture in the right. Thus Luther says of the hexaemeron {the six day account of creation in Genesis}: ‘If you cannot understand how it could have been done in six days, then accord the Holy Ghost the honor that He is more erudite than you. When you read the words of Holy Scripture, you must realize that God is speaking them.’ (St. L. III:21) Luther maintains this also with regard to all chronological data in Scripture, and he thus places himself in direct opposition to all modern theology.” (pp. 280-281)

“...when Luther spoke of inspiration he meant ‘Verbal Inspiration.’ He says in explanation of meditatio: ‘Secondly, you should meditate, that is, not in the heart alone, but also externally, work on and ply the oral speech and the lettered words in the Book (scil., in Holy Scripture], read them and reread them again and again, noting carefully and reflecting upon what the Holy Ghost means by these words [scil., by the “lettered 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.’ (St. L. XIV:435.) In this forceful way, Luther ties all theological study and all endeavor to perceive the divine truth with 'the lettered words in the Book,' with Verbal Inspiration. We repeat what we have said in the beginning of this chapter: if we wish to speak of a difference between Luther and the orthodox Lutheran dogmaticians, then the difference does not consist in Luther's taking a 'more liberal' attitude toward Scripture, but in his teaching with much more force and more fully than the dogmaticians that Scripture and the Word of God are identical.” (p. 286)

“We cannot close this chapter on 'Luther and the Inspiration of Scripture' without considering several statements of Luther that are adduced with great confidence by nearly all modern theologians as proofs for Luther's 'liberal attitude' toward Scripture. When we examine these statements, we shall see that they do not prove Luther's 'liberal' attitude toward Scripture, but the unscientific and loose manner of the neologists in quoting Luther.” (pp. 286-287)

"To prove that Luther 'concedes errors in Scripture,' Tholuck wrote in the first edition of Herzog's Realenzyklopaedie VI, 695: 'In his preface to Link's Annotations on the Five Books of Moses, Luther says, "Without doubt the Prophets studied Moses, and the later Prophets studied the first Prophets and wrote their good thoughts, inspired by the Holy Ghost, into a book. But though some hay, straw, and stubble slipped in at times (into the writing) of these good faithful teachers and searchers of the Scriptures and they did not build purely silver, gold, and precious stones, still the foundation remains; the rest the fire consumes." (St. L. XIV:150.)' ...As a matter of fact, it is utterly impossible to refer Luther's words to the 'Biblical author,' that is, to the Prophets, in so far as they wrote the Bible of the Old Testament. Luther is rather speaking of those periods in the lives of the Prophets when they were not moved as the infallible organs of the Holy Spirit to write the Holy Scriptures, but when outside the state of inspiration, they, just like other people, made the Scriptures of the Old Testament the object of their study and, in doing this, entered 'in a book' the good thoughts the Holy Spirit awakened in them during this study." (pp. 287-288)

"Next to the 'hay, straw, and stubble' quotation the moderns like to use the 'too weak for a thrust' passage to prove Luther's vacillating attitude toward Scripture. But here, too, the context is utterly disregarded. When Cremer writes (R. E., 2d ed., VI, p. 753): Luther speaks 'of an inadequate proof of the Apostle (Gal. 4:21: 'zum Stich zu schwach'—too weak for a thrust, i.e., unconvincing),' the impression is created—and Cremer intended to create that impression—as though Luther denied that the allegory used by Paul in Galatians 4...had any validity whatever, while Luther, in fact, merely says that in a controversy with the Jews, for whom the Apostle was not yet an authority, the allegory was 'too weak for a thrust.' ...the Latin original...reads 'in acie minus valet'—'it has less convincing power in a controversy.'" (p. 290)

"It goes without saying that it is entirely improper to offer Luther's distinction between homologumena and antilegomena as proof for his 'free' attitude toward inspiration....This is an illogical identification of two things that have nothing in common. In the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture we are not concerned with the extent of the canon, that is whether the so-called antilegomena...belong in the canon, but we are concerned with the question whether the books which are canonical beyond a doubt...are inspired, are God's infallible Word. This Luther maintains from first to last, as we saw in the first part of this chapter. But as to the extent of the canon, Luther (as also Chemnitz, etc.) abides by the distinction which, according to the report of Eusebius (Church History III, 25), the Early Church made in regard to the certain or uncertain Apostolic origin of the books of the New Testament (St. L. XIV:132)." (pp. 291-292)

"It is thus evident that the modern theologians who claim Luther as patron of their liberal attitude toward Scripture either have not read Luther at all, but have copied from compilations of others without verifying them, or, if they have actually read Luther, were unable to understand him, because their wish to have Luther as their protector was stronger than their sense of historical truth." (pp. 296-297)

"The question why people do not recognize the Scriptures, which are the Word of God, as the Word of God, is clearly answered by the Scriptures. Jesus is dealing (John 8:37-47) with people who would not recognize His Word as the Word of the Son of God....Positively and negatively Jesus declares (v. 47): 'He that is of God heareth God's words; ye therefore hear them not because ye are not sons of God.' It is obvious from the context that the term 'hear' is here used in the pregnant sense, denoting not merely the external hearing with the ears, but also the 'internal' hearing, the reception of the word as God's Word." (p. 299)

"Again, in John 10:4, in the Parable of the Good Shepherd, Christ says that His sheep follow Him, 'for they know His voice,' and in v. 26 {John 10:26} He gives as the reason why the Jews would not accept His Word: 'Because ye are not of My sheep.'...But, now, why does Christ deny that the Jews who were disputing with Him were God's children and declare that they were consequently unable to receive His Word as God's Word? ...In short, the Jews' rejection of the Word of Christ as not being the Word of God was but a symptom of a deeper-seated disease, namely, that they did not believe in Christ's vicarious satisfaction." (pp. 299-300.) In establishing this, Pieper cites and discusses John 8:39, Matt. 20:28, Isaiah 53:5, and John 8:24.

"Even so the fact that the modern theologians do not perceive Scripture (which verily is Christ's own Word, given us through His Prophets and Apostles) to be the Word of God, is but a symptom of a deeper disease, namely, that they have quite generally discarded the doctrine of the satisfactio Christi vicaria....Where the satisfactio vicaria is not taught and believed, there is also no Holy Ghost, for only through this doctrine, through faith in this doctrine, does the Holy Ghost enter into the heart (Gal. 3:2; John 16:14); and He is the Spirit of truth, who teaches me to recognize His Word which He spoke through the Prophets and Apostles (1 Pet. 1:10-12) as His Word. Modern theology must therefore return to the Scriptural teaching of the satisfactio vicaria. Without this return it will never attain the Christian attitude toward Scripture, but will continue in its teaching on Scripture, to contradict Christ and His Apostles to their face." (pp. 300-301)

Pieper notes the untruths with which modern theology is compelled to operate, together with the actual truth of the matter in each case:
"1. ...it was the later dogmaticians who invented the 'artificial theory' that every word of Scripture is the infallible Word of God ('identification of Scripture with the Word of God'), while Luther had preserved an attitude of freedom over against Scripture. The historical truth is, as we have seen, that Luther presented in all its details the doctrine found in the dogmaticians and that he did it so much more powerfully than the dogmaticians could do it. 2. If we examine the quotations from Luther which are brought forward in the attempt to make Luther the protector of the neologists in their fight against inspiration, we find that these passages either do not speak of inspiration at all (as e.g., the 'hay, straw, and stubble' passage) or say the opposite of what is ascribed to Luther.... 3. To discredit Verbal Inspiration in the eyes of the pubic, the assertion is rather generally made that the dogmaticians had entirely 'mechanical conceptions' of the inspiration of Scripture. The historical truth is that the dogmaticians expressly reject all mechanical conceptions; they teach that the Holy Ghost suavi operatione (by a suave operation) so influenced the intellect and will of the writers that they wrote volentes scientesque (willing and conscious of it), not citra et contra voluntatem suam, inscii ac inviti (without and contrary to their will, unknowingly and unwillingly). 4. To discredit Verbal Inspiration, it is further asserted that the verbal-inspirationists regarded Holy Scripture as 'a codex of laws fallen from heaven,' as 'a paper pope,' etc. The truth is that such a thought never entered the minds of the defenders of Verbal Inspiration. Rather they teach very clearly that Scripture did not fall from heaven, but was written here on earth by men, in a human tongue, through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. And the advocates of Verbal Inspiration do not set up Scripture as a 'paper pope,' which demands external subjection without internal conviction, but to them Scripture is a book that—by virtue of its being God's own Word—itself works faith and eo ipso willing and joyous acceptance through the operation of the Holy Ghost inherent in it." (pp. 301-302)

Pieper gives examples of other faulty arguments used against the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration:
"It is a paralogism to use Luther's 'liberal opinions' on the antilegomena, which he, together with the Early Church, did not consider a part of the fixed canon, as proof that he took a 'liberal attitude' toward Scripture in general, also toward the homologumena, and doubted their inspiration..." (p. 302)

"That the opposition to the truth of inspiration leads to the predicament of logical untruth is apparent from the self-contradictions in which these men involve themselves. On the one hand we have the assertion that in presenting the Christian doctrine one must not proceed from the 'word revelation,'that is, from Holy Scripture, but from 'faith' in the 'revelation by deed' or in the 'facts of salvation,' a faith which the Christian or theologian has in his heart. On the other hand, these same men admit, and they are right in doing this, that God's 'revelation by deed' without God's revelation in the Word, remains an 'undecipherable hieroglyph.' The latter assertion entirely cancels hte former, since it establishes that without God's revelation in the Word no faith whatever in God's 'revelation by deed' is possible; nothing would be left from which to proceed." (pp. 302-303)

"The results of the denial of the inspiration of Scripture are the following:

"1. The knowledge of Christian truth is lost and in its place we get human illusion and ignorance. For if any man teach otherwise and consent not to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we have them in the words of His Apostles and Prophets, he is bloated and ignorant, sick (Grk. nosōn) about questions and strife of words (1 Tim. 6:3-4; John 8:31-32; John 17:20)....

"2. Faith, in the Christian sense, is relinquished, since Christian faith can exist only vis-à-vis the Word of God. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. (Rom. 10:17).

"3. Prayer must be given up, since Christian prayer presupposes the continuing in Christ's words. 'If ye abide in Me and My words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you' (John 15:7).

"4. Victory over death is rendered impossible. 'If a man keep My saying, he shall never see death' (John 8:51).

"5. If we deny inspiration, we relinquish the one effective means of doing mission work, which consists in teaching men to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded His Church (Matt. 28:19). Whoever does not bring the doctrine of Christ should not be received or treated as a Christian teacher (2 John 9-10).

"6. We lose the true Christian unity of the Church, which consists in faith in the Word of Christ (John 8:31-32; Matt. 28:19; Eph. 4:3)....

"7. We relinquish intercourse with God, since God, remaining invisible to us in this life, approaches us only through His Word. He that does not commune with God solely by means of His Word is holding intercourse only with his own fantasies, with 'projections of his human Ego' (1 Cor. 13:12; 1 Tim. 6:3-4).

"8. We turn the Christian religion, which is the wisdom from above, the sophia theou which has not 'entered into the heart of man' and is a 'mystery which was kept secret since the world began but now is made manifest by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God' (1 Cor. 2:9; Rom. 16:25-26)—this wisdom from above we turn into a wisdom 'of this world,' since we let men decide for us what in the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets is God's truth and what is not God's truth, and how much of Scripture is to be accepted and how much rejected." (pp. 305-306)

"We have seen that Christ and His Apostles took this position toward the Scriptures of the Old Testament (Luke 24:25): 'O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken.' (Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Matt. 4:4-7) And Christ and His Apostles demand that we give the same obedience to their own Word in the New Testament (John 8:31-32: 'If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed'; 1 Cor. 14:37-38; Gal. 1:8). He that rejects or even only criticizes Scripture affronts the very Majesty on High; he is committing a crimen laesae maiestatis divinae {the crime of offending the divine majesty}. Hence Christ's warning: 'The Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the Last Day' (John 12:48)." (p. 307)

"The divine authority rests solely on its nature, on its theopneusty {'quality of being God-breathed'; Greek theopneustos = 'God' + 'breathed'}. It is a correct theological axiom: 'Scripture is autopistos (worthy of credence on its own account) because it is theopneustos.'" (p. 307)

"If it is asked how the divine authority of Scripture is recognized by us, or how the Scriptures became a divine authority for us, we distinguish between Christian certainty (fides divina) and natural, or scientific, certainty (fides humana).

"Christian certainty is created solely by the self-testimony of Scripture, by the Word of Scripture, which through the power of the Holy Ghost operating in it, not by the employment of human proofs, creates faith in itself and eo ipso secures its acceptation. This is clearly taught in 1 Cor. 2:4-5....Christ employs the same method. He says of His preaching in the days of his flesh: 'If any man willl do His [the Father's] will [namely, to hear Christ's Word and to believe on Him, John 6:40], he shall know (gnōsetai) of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of Myself' (John 7:17). We may express this important truth in this form: The Word of Scripture, being the Word of God, is an object of perception that creates its own organ of perception, faith, and thus Scripture itself bears witness to its divine authority.

"This is the so-called testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum. It is a mistake to assume that a person hears this testimony of the Spirit only when his emotions are stirred. It is already present in and with the Spirit-wrought faith in the Word of Scripture. By working faith in the Word of Scripture, which faith has its seat in the spirit of man, the Holy Ghost bears witness of the divinity of the Word of Scripture to the spirit of man. According to 1 John 5:9-10, he who believes God's witness of His Son has God's witness in Him (en auto)." (p. 308)

"Besides the Christian certainty (fides divina) of the divinity of Scripture, which is produced by the self-attestation of Scripture, there is also a purely human conviction (fides humana, or 'scientific certainty') of the divine authority of Scripture, which is based on arguments of reason. Our old theologians call these arguments of reason 'arguments which show that the divine origin of Scripture is recognizable by, or credible to, human faith" (Baier-Walther, I, 121)." (pp. 309-310)

"As to the value of the arguments that produce a human, or scientific, conviction of the divinity of Scripture, a twofold extreme must be avoided: overestimation and underestimation. It would be overestimation if we imagined that any one could be converted by such rational arguments. A man becomes a Christian in every single case and until the Last Day, only in one way: by way of contritio and fides; that is, he must experience the divine judgment of condemnation, which the Law, speaking through Scripture, produces (terrores conscientiae) and believe in the remission of his sins through the Gospel, proclaimed in Scripture....

"The arguments which forth only a human faith (fidem humanam) would be underestimated if we declared them to be utterly worthless....Such rational arguments serve to show how frivolous are the judgments of unbelief against the divinity of Scripture....Arguments of reason, historical arguments, etc., can also be of service in the conversion of a person by inducing those outside the Church to read or hear the Word of God itself and so come to faith in the Word by the operation of the Holy Ghost through the Word.—But we must not imagine that the presentation of such arguments of reason is a necessary prerequisite for the proclamation of the Word of God." (pp. 310-311)

"The inner witness of the Holy Spirit, in its first and proper sense, coincides, according to 1 John 5:9-10, with the Spirit-wrought faith in the written Word. It is present even when faith is not felt, but when the heart clings to the Word of Scripture, longs and reaches out for it with an inner yearning. Luther elaborates the point that the witness of the Spirit coincides with faith in the Word of Scripture thus: 'We make no distinction between the Holy Ghost and faith, nor does He oppose faith; for He Himself is the certainty in the Word, who makes us certain of the Word, so that we do not doubt it, but without any doubt most certainly believe that it is just as God's Word tells and reports it. But the Spirit is given to no one without and outside the Word; He is given only through the Word.... Without the oral Word the Holy Ghost does not operate.' (Erl. 58, 153 f.) The situation, then, is this: The Holy Ghost, who originally spoke His Word through the Apostles and Prophets, remains united with His Word until Judgment Day and through His Word works that faith which believes on the basis of the Word itself and not on the basis of rational arguments or human authorities. This is the Christian, or divine, faith (fides divina) in contrast to a mere human opinion, or conviction (fides humana)." (pp. 314-315)

"The Word of the Law (<i>nomos pneumatikos</i>), as it is revealed in Holy Scripture, has the inherent power to work such a knowledge of sin that man realizes hi eternal damnation and despairs of all self-help (contritio, terrores conscientiae). Rom 3:20: 'By the Law is the knowledge of sin.'...

"The Word of the Gospel has the inherent power to work faith in the Gospel. Rom 10:17: 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.' Thus it creates in man the assurance that his sins are forgiven. Rom. 5:1: 'Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Human strength and human learning, even at their best, do not suffice to work faith in the Gospel..." (pp. 315-316)

"The Word of the Gospel, presented in Scripture, has the inherent power to write God's Law into the heart of man, that is, so to change man inwardly that he gladly subjects himself to God's Law and willingly and with delight walks in the ways of God according to the new man, which is created in him through faith in the Gospel. Human strength and human training cannot accomplish this change." (p. 316)

"The Word of the Gospel, presented in Scripture, has the inherent power to deliver man from the fear of death and thus to make him the victor over death. This victory is beyond human power, as Scripture and experience testify." (pp. 316-317)

"The divine power does not operate outside or alongside the Word, but through the Word and therefore inheres in the Word; that is the plain statement of Scripture, Rom. 10:17 (ek), 1 Pet. 1:23 (dia), and must be maintained over against the Reformed, as will be shown in detail in the doctrine of the means of grace. The truth that the efficientia vere divina {true divine efficacy}, exerted through the Word of God, is resistibilis (Matt. 23:37) will be presented more fully in the doctrine of conversion." (p. 317)

"a. Scripture does not treat everything a man can know, for example, the things pertaining to the sphere of earthly or civil life....But remember: When Scripture incidentally treats a scientific subject, it is always right, let 'science' say what it pleases; for pasa graphe theopneustos {all scripture is God-breathed}." (p. 317)

"b. The Scriptures do not reveal all divine matters. Concerning the knowledge of divine things attainable in this life it declares: 'Now I know in part' (1 Cor. 13:12), and: 'How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? (Rom. 11:33-34)" (p. 318)

"c. But Scripture teaches perfectly whatever we need to know to obtain eternal life. It says concerning 'the Holy Scriptures' (2 Tim. 3:15) that they 'are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Also cited: John 8:31-32, 1 Tim. 6:3-6, 2 Tim. 1:13, Rom. 16:17, Gal. 1:6-9. "It is certain, then, that the Scriptures, in order to attain their purpose of making men wise unto salvation, do not in any way need to be supplemented with any outside material, be that tradition, church decrees, Pope, the experience of the theologian, science, or what not." (pp. 318-319)

"It is self-evident that if the perfectio, or sufficientia, of Scripture be surrendered, the Scripture principle is given up. If a deficiency in the Bible must be supplied from some outside source, the Christian Church is eo ipso moved off its foundation, the Word of the Apostles and Prophets, and based on the Ego of the alleged supplementers. It is the old talk of Rome about a perfectio implicita Scripturae Sacrae {'the perplexing perfection of Holy Scriptures' - Scaer}—Scripture is perfect when supplemented by the 'Church,' that is, of course, by the Pope. In the same sense Roman theologians have called Scripture a norma 'remissiva' {'a standard of authority that needs correction' - Scaer}—it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church, that is, the Pope, to supply the deficiencies. Our theologians have answered: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred.'" (p. 319)

"a. This perspicuity is presupposed, as a matter of course, since not only those who are specially gifted, but all Christians are to read the Scriptures, are to believe on the basis of Scripture and to judge truth and error on the same basis....The fact that most of the Apostolic epistles were addressed to whole congregations and were to be read in their meetings (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27) presupposes their perspicuity." (p. 320)

b. But the perspicuity of Scripture is not only presupposed as self-evident, but Scripture teaches it also very expressly; it most emphatically protests against ever regarding Scripture as an obscure book, as do not only unbelievers, but also some within external Christendom; at times even devout Christians are disturbed. Scripture says of itself that it is a 'light shining in a dark place' (2 Pet. 1:19) and that it 'is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path' (Psalm 119:105). It is clear even for the unlearned, 'making wise the simple' (Psalm 19:7). Even children can understand it, for 'from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures' (2 Tim. 3:15). Even the writings of St. John, which have been singled out as being particularly obscure, were understood not only by the 'fathers,' not only by the 'young men,' but also by the 'little children' (1 John 2:12-13).

"1. For all those to whom the language of Scripture is altogether unknown or at least unfamiliar....One who does not command the English tongue cannot understand the English Bible. But, in the second place, it is necessary that we become accustomed to the language of the Bible by diligent study....the diligent reading of Scripture is directly enjoined in the Old and the New Testament. (Psalm 1:2; Deut. 6:6-9; John 5:39; Col. 3:16; 1 Tim. 6:3-4)." (p. 321)

2. Scripture itself expressly says that its Word remains hidden to those who in their heart maintain a hostile attitude toward the Scriptures, i.e., who do not care to learn from the Scriptures, but aim to set Scriptures right and criticize it with their own human notions." Cited: Matt. 11:25; 2 Cor. 4:3-4; Is. 6:9-10; Acts 28:25-27; Rom. 9:31-33; Rom. 10:21; Rom. 11:7-10; Matt. 13:13-15. (pp. 321-322)

"3. Scripture remains dark also to those whose prejudice against certain Scripture doctrines keeps them from even externally taking note of the respective words of Scripture. Thus Christ's words regarding the Lord's Supper remain hidden to some of the Reformed because of the false interpretation of these words which they have heard since their youth. When they hear or read the words of Christ: 'This is my body,' they at once substitute in their thought the words: 'This signifies My body,' or: 'This is a symbol of My body.'" (p. 322)

Pages 322-329 contain a section titled "Objections Raised Against the Perspicuity of Scripture"

"...the Apostle Paul declares (1 Tim. 6:3-4) that all error in doctrine can be traced to the refusal of the teacher to continue in the wholesome words of Christ. This refusal prompted Luther's constant warning against substituting an interpretation (gloss) for the Scripture words themselves, for the 'nuda Scriptura.' 'Be it known, then, that Scripture, without any gloss, is the sun and sole light from which all teachers receive their light, and not the contrary.' (St. L. XVIII:1292 ff.) 'The Word they still shall let remain.' It is a characteristic of the Lutheran Church that it does not base its doctrine on any exegesis, not even on the exegesis of Luther, but on the bare words of Scripture, while the Papists and the Reformed in all doctrines in which they differ from the Lutheran Church do not stand on the word of Scripture, but on an 'exegesis' of the Pope, Zwingli, Calvin, etc. And modern theology, because of its denial of the inspiration of Scripture, declares openly that it does not stand on the Word of Scripture, but on the so-called 'Christian experience.'" (p. 323)

"It is but natural that modern theology, just like Rome and the 'enthusiasts,' should exhibit a deep interest in the obscurity of Scripture. If the Scriptures are dark, they are a fitting object to be illuminated by the product of the 'self-consciousness of the theologizing subject.' A dark Scripture is the vital element, as for Rome and the enthusiasts, so for modern theology." (p. 329)

"Besides Scriptures own testimony as to its divine authority, we have, through the gracious providence of God, ample historical testimony to that effect. For the Scriptures of the Old Testament we have the testimony of the Jewish Church and of Christ and His Apostles. Christian theologians of all ages are right in saying: If the Jews had been mistaken as to their canon or had falsified it, Christ would not have so unconditionally and without limitation pointed to the Scripture in the hands of the Jews and asserted their inviolability... {Pieper quotes Luke 16:29; Luke 24:44; John 5:39; and John 10:35.} There is, however, no historical witness for the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Neither the Jewish Church nor Christ recognized them as canonical.

"For the Scriptures of the New Testament we have the historical witness of the Early Church (ecclesia primitiva). Its witness is unanimous as to the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteeen Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter (homologoumena). But as to the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, doubts, more or less strongly expressed, were entertained (antilegomena). Eusebius in his Church History lists the homologoumena and the antilegomena. The historical fact that the Early Church differentiated between the homologoumena and the antilegomena cannot be changed by a resolution of the later Church. Luther, too, abides by this judgment of the primitive Church; he says, appelaing to Eusebius (Church History III, 25), that in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse 'had a different reputation.' He finds much excellent instruction in the antilegomena, grants that the offensive passages may be explained acceptably by 'glosses,' and will keep no one from appraising them as he sees fit. But he will not class them with the 'right certain chief books of the New Testament.' As for himself, he will let the doubt entertained by the Early Church remain. Chemnitz denounced the action of the Roman Catholic Church {at Trent} in declaring the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the antilegomena of the New Testament a part of the canon of Scripture by a mere decree and in anathematizing all those who refused to accept the canon fixed in the Vulgate, as anti-Christian." (pp. 330-331)

Quoting Chemnitz from the Examen Concilii Tridentini on the antilegomena: "Does this mean that these books are simply to be rejected and condemned? We are by no means seeking this. Then of what use is this dispute? I answer: To make sure the rule of faith or sound doctrine in the Church. For the ancients held that the authority of the Church dogmas rests solely on the canonical books. It was held that only by the authority of the canonical books could those things be established about which any dispute arose. The rest of the books which Cyprian calls ecclesiastical, Jerome apocryphal, were to be read in the Church for the edification of the people, but not to prove the dogmas of the Church.... No dogma which does not have a certain and clear foundation in the canonical books dare be constructed from these books if there are no other proofs and confirmations in the canonical books. But what is said in these books must be explained and understood according to the analogy of what is clearly set down in the canonical books. There can be no doubt that this is the meaing of the ancient Church. But the Council of Trent will hear nothing of this necessary and most true distinction of the ancient Church, subverts and abolishes it, for the reason that (as my Andradius says) they do not want to be confined to these narrow limits; they do not want to be so destitute of all other helps that they must derive their faith solely from the canonical Scriptures." (pp.335-336)

"In this connection the question has been asked whether the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena has any 'sweeping dogmatical significance.' We for our part answer No, assuming that the meaning is that he who regards and treats the antilegomena as canonical thereby obtains more and other doctrines. On the one hand we observe the distinction made by the ancient Church between the writings of the New Testament; on the other hand we are convinced that the antilegomena, even when taken by themselves, neither contain false doctrine nor ytet a doctrine which goes beyond the doctrine contained in the books that have the unanimous testimony of the ecclesia primitiva. We are convinced that Rome and certain sectarians misuse the Epistle of James when they make it the protector of their doctrine of work-righteousness. We must simply keep in mind that James is speaking of faith not in so far as it justifies before God, but in so far as we are, according to God's will and ordinance, to evidence our faith to men, which can be done only by works. (See the chapter 'Justification on the Basis of Works,' in Vol. II.) James is addressing not so much the new man as the old man in the Christian. And the Apocalypse does not contain an inkling of that chiliasm with which old and modern chiliasts have disturbed and plagued the Church. The correctness of this judgment will be demonstrated in the chapter 'The Second Advent of Christ,' in Vol. III." (p. 337)

"1. Whether the original Hebrew text contained the vowel points, as most of the older Lutheran dogmaticians assume, or was written only in consonants, as Luther very emphatically asserts, is a historical question which does not affect either the inspiration of Scripture or the integrity of the text." (p. 338)

"2. We would draw particular attention to the manifest care with which God kept watch over the integrity of the Biblical text of the New Testament.... The fact is that the changes in the text which occurred in the course of eighteen centuries are so insignificant that in the seminary we can use the various modern critical editions and the textus receptus side by side without any difficulty." (pp. 338-340)

3. Pieper reviews the issue of 1 John 5:7-8, particularly with regard to a reference from Cyprian to it two hundred years before B (5th century) and Sinaiticus (4th century).

"In our opinion the decision as to the authenticity or spuriousness of these words depends on the understanding of certain words of Cyprian {d. 258}, which are about two hundred years older than our oldest codices. We find these words in Cyprian's De Unitate Ecclesiae (in my edition: Erasmus, Basle, 1525, p. 164): 'Dicit Dominus: "Ego et Pater unum sumus"' ('the Lord says: "I and the Father are One"'). Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds 'Et itermu de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: "Et tres unum sunt"' ('and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: "And the Three are One"'). Now, those who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: 'Et tres unum sunt' {'And the three are one'}, applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5." (pp. 340-341)

"While we have always deplored the necessity of spending so much of the time of our regular dogmatical course on the textual discussion of 1 John 5:7-8, it has resulted in a twofold practical benefit. For one thing it gave us an opportunity to point out, with Tischendorf, that the doctrine of the Trinity is in no wise dependent on the genuineness of this passage, since there is more than enough proof for this doctrine in other passages. In the second place, it gave us the opportunity to inculcate the rule, never to attempt to use this passage in disputing with Unitarians. If this were done, the Unitarians would at once shift the discussion over to the field of textual criticism, with the result that the status controversiae, the doctrine of the Trinity, would be lost sight of and the public would receive the impression that the Scriptural foundation for this doctrine is rather weak." (pp. 341-342)

"May we be permitted to make a final remark that no theologian is risking his scientific reputation by whatever position he takes in the question of the genuineness of our passage. The 'notoriously spurious,' which modern theologians are quick to use in connection with this passage, does not prove their scientific superiority; but rather the opposite. Whoever is somewhat familiar with the true state of affairs cultivates a more modest language. Bloomfield remarks in his commentary that on this passage 'volumes have been written by some of the most eminent scholars.' He gives the names of the men who stand for the 'pro' and 'contra' in this matter; then he comments, as Luther also did, on both versions; and finally he takes the well-known position of Bengel. He closes with the words: 'On again examining, for this second edition of the present work, the evidence for and against the words, I still think that much of the mystery in which Bishop Middleton considers this passage as enveloped has yet to be cleared away; and my impression is...that, from the peculiar character of the evidence, external and internal...we are neither authorized to receive the passage as indubitably genuine, nor, on the other hand, to reject it indubitably as spurious, but to wait for further evidence." (p. 342)

Scriptures listed by Pieper showing that Scripure is intended for the use of all Christians (pp. 343-344):

Deut. 6:6-9; Joshua 1:8; Isaiah 34:16; Neh. 8:2-8; 2 Kings 23:1-2; Luke 16:29-31; John 5:39; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 John 1:4; 2 Tim. 3:15; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27.

“We do not say that it is absolutely necessary that one must read the Scriptures in order to be saved. What is absolutely necessary is the knowledge of those fundamental articles of the Christian faith through which repentance and faith in the remission of sins purchased by Christ is brought about in man (Luke 24:46-47), and this knowledge may be obtained by mere hearing of a Scriptural sermon or instruction.” (p. 344)

“The contention of the Papacy that the reading of Scripture cannot be permitted to all Christians because that would expose the 'laymen' to the danger of interpreting Scripture according to their own thoughts and thus introducing false doctrine is beside the point, for experience has shown that it is aboue all the clergy and, primus omnium, the Pope who have interpreted Scripture according to their own mind and filled the world with the most horrible heresies.¹⁵⁰” (p. 344)

From footnote 150, pp. 344-345: “Rome treats the Bible as a dangerous book. Permission to read it is to be granted only to certain laymen, namely, to those to whom, in the opinion of the parish priest or confessor, it would not be harmful. The fourth rule of the Congregation of the Index of Prohibited Books, approved by Pius IV {pope 1559 to 1565 when the Council of Trent ended}, states: 'Since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bible in the vulgar tongue be suffered to be read everywhere without distinction, more evil than good arises, let the judgment of the biship or inquisitor be abided by in this respect, so that, after consulting with the parish priest or the confessor, they may grant permission to read translations of the scriptures, made by Catholic writers, to those whom they understand to be able to receive no harm, but an increase of faith and piety from such reading, which permission should be given in writing. But whosoever shall presume to read these Bibles, or have them in possession without such permission, shall not be capable of receiving absolution for their sins, unless they have first given up their Bibles to the bishop. The booksellers, however, who sell Bibles in the vulgar tongue to someone who has not this permision, or make a concession in any other way, are to lose the price of the books, which is to be converted to a pious use by the bishop or be subject to other punishments commensurate with their transgression according to the judgment of the bishop. The regular clergy, however, dare neither read nor buy them unless they have obtained permission from their prelates.' (In Smets, p. 224.)” There is more documentation following this in the same footnote.

"It is self-evident that the original wields canonical authority also over the translations. The vernacuular versions have authority only in so far as they correctly render the original text. All translations must submit to the test whether they reproduce the original correctly. When the Church of the Pope declares the Vulgate to be absolutely authoritative¹⁵¹, it commits an Antichristian outrage. However, the disparity between the original of Scripture and its translation must not be unduly stressed. Modern theologians engage in this erroneous and dangerous talk when they argue against the inspiration of Scripture along these lines: Even if Scripture were entirely God's Word, that would be of no benefit to the Church, since the Church, with the exception of a small minority of its mebers, can use teh Scriptures only in translations, and the translations must be regarded as merely human views.... Over against this view it must be maintained: Of course even the best translators of the Bible are not inspired as were the infallible Apostles and Prophets, and for that reason their translations must remain under the control of the original text and in so far are norma normata {"normed norms"} Our dogmaticians emphasized this over against Rome. On the other and it must not be forgotten: Whaterve is God's Word in Greek, is God's Word also in German and English if only the German or the English is a faithful translation of the Greek. We should here keep in mind the nature of the Holy Scriptures. The language of Holy Scripture is so simple, paricularly in the sedes doctrinae, that every translation which at all deserves the name of a 'translation' must reproduce the original. One who understands the New Testament Greek and commands the language into which he is translating must take particular pains if he is minded to produce a translation which does not reproduce the original text." (p. 345)

Footnote 151: "Tridentinum, Sess. IV, decretum de editione, etc." (p. 345)

“We shall always have to be content with versions which in the translation of difficult passages do not introduce false doctrines, but offer a translation which is 'according to the analogy of faith' (what the analogy of faith, or the regula fidei is, will be shown in the chapter 'Holy Scripture and Exegesis'). In that case the translator may have had, as Luther says, the correct thoughts at the wrong place. Such translations will do no harm. They do not in any way militate against the clarity of Scripture, as has been shown in the chapter on 'The Perspicuity of Scripture.'” (p. 349)

"To settle a doctrinal controversy, two rules, to which also our old theologians constantly call attention, must be observed. 1) Define exactly the question at issue (status controversiae); and 2) when that has been done, let those Scripture passages speak which treat of the controversial point. Then Scripture itself will decide the matter with the greatest clearness and certainty. It will, of course, not force the external acceptance of its decision and externally stop the mouth of the gainsayer, but it will either inwardly convince and persuade him, as was the case with the servants of the Sanhedrin (John 7:46), or it will confront him who tenaciously clings to his error with the dire possibility of becoming an autokatakritos (Titus 3:11: 'knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself').... It is for this reason that Scripture says of Scripture that it speaks, testifies, accuses, judges, concludes under sin, stops the mouth, etc. (John 19:24; Rom. 3:21; John 5:45; John 12:48; Gal. 3:22; Rom. 3:19)." (pp. 350-351)

"Since Scripture is plain on the point that all doctrinal issues can and should be decided by Scripture, the question arises why doctrinal debates and colloquies so seldom achieve the desired end. The answer is intimated in the beginning of this chapter. If the status controversiae either is not at all defined—or as happens still oftener—is again lost sight of, the result is that the two parties are talking of two different things, and an agreement is out of the question. Nor can an agreement be reached if the controverted point is not placed in the light of Scripture. This happens when an 'interpretation' takes the place of Scripture or passages are quoted which treat of a different doctrine. The latter case is of frequent occurrence. Thus the proposal has been made that the doctrine of the Lord's Supper be taken not rfom the words of institution, but from John 6, or that the doctrine of our eternal election to salvation be taken not from the Scripture passages which treat of election to salvation, but from John 3:16; etc. Modern theology even goes so far as to demand that each doctrine be derived from 'the whole of Scripture.' This senseless and impossible method, recommended and adopted by the 'Reformer of the nineteenth century' (Schleiermacher), is declared to proceed from a 'deeper understanding of Scripture,' while the old theologians are said to have cut up Scripture by insisting that each doctrine be taken from the passages in which it is revealed. It is clear that in all these cases Scripture is not heard at all, but its mouth is stopped by a principle foreign to Scripture, exactly as is done in the Papacy." (p. 353)

"This same truth—that the Lutheran Church does not set up in its Symbols a second norm alongside Scripture—is evidenced by its insistence of the quia form of subscription {subscribing to the Confessions 'because' they teach the Scriptural truths}. It binds its teachers to the doctrine contained in the Confessions not because it is the doctrine of the Confessions, but because it is the doctrine of Scripture. There are many who insist on the quatenus from of subscription—'in so far as'—the Symbols teach the Scripture truth. One wonders if these people take a serious view of the obligation involved. J. G. Walch aptly remarks that with the restrictive quaetenus one could place his signature under the Koran or the Racovian Catechism." (p. 354)

"The quatenus pledge has appeared in several forms.

"1. It is said that the Symbols 'offer an essentially correct' presentation 'of the chief doctrines.' It is left to the whim of the individual what is to be regarded as chief doctrines and what is 'an essentially correct' presentation of these fundamental doctrines.

"2. It has been said the Symbols must be interpreted 'historically.' This is to say, not all doctrines contained in the Symbols are binding, but only those which the Church was compelled to discuss by reason of a doctrinal controversy in its midst....

"3. Again, there are those who are ready to subscribe to the Confessions with the understanding that they be interpreted 'according to Scripture' or 'correctly.'... This has a pious and Scriptural ring, but in fact it completely overlooks and does away with the purpose of the Symbols. By subscribing to the Symbols a man does not declare his readiness to interpret them 'according to Scripture,' but the minister or candidate in question makes the solemn declaration to the congregation that he has already discovered what Scripture teaches and he finds the Lutheran Confessions to be the expression of his own faith and confession.

"4. It is a quatenus form of subscription when men profess to follow, not the 'letter,' but the 'spirit' of the Confessions. The rationalists of the eighteenth century were very willing to sign the Confessions with this restriction. By 'spirit' they meant their own spirit, which transformed the essence of Christianity into heathen morality." (pp. 355-356)

"All these and other quatenus forms frustrate the purpose of the confessional obligation. The congregation can never know how much of the doctrine contained in the Confessions is being accepted. These quatenus forms are, at bottom, in conflict with common honesty and uprightness. And experience shows that behind the demand for a conditional subscription lies the refusal to accept certain doctrines of the Confessions." (p. 356)

"The confessional pledge covers only the doctrine"—not "all the historical, scientific and purely external remarks that are found here and there in the Confessions." Also, one does not need to subscribe to all exegetical proof offered there. "We readily grant that together with the passages that prove a doctrine passages are occasionally quoted which belong elsewhere. But what we do claim is that there is no doctrine found in the Confessions for which there is not ample Scripture proof offered." (p. 356)

"To show the relation between Holy Scripture and the Symbols of the orthodox Church, the following terms have been used: norma and norma normata, norma primaria and secundaria. Both terms express the truth that the Symbols are a norm, but not by themselves (absolute), but only in a certain respect (secundum quid), namely, a derived norm, because the doctrines confessed in our Symbols are taken from Scripture. The purpose of the Symbols is brought out in the terms norma decisionis and norma discretionis (deciding norm and distinguishing norm). Scripture alone decides which doctrine is true, which is false; but from the attitude which one takes toward the Symbols of the Lutheran Church we learn whether he knows and accepts the Scripture doctrine or does not accept it (norma discretionis discernit orthodoxos ab heterodoxis {'the distinguishing norm divides the othodox from the heterodox'})." (p. 358)

"As Luther expresses it: 'If you cannot understand the obscure, then stay with the clear' (St. L. V:338)." (p. 360)

"Good Papists and poor Protestants object here that in that case the special gift of explaining the Scriptures, which God gives to some Christians in preference to others, would be of no use. The objection is not valid. There is a wide territory open for the profitable exercise of the gift of interpreting Scripture in spite of the perfect clarity of Scripture in the sense just described. In the first place, Harless declares in his preface to Luther's explanation of John 17: 'Even though the Word of God in itself does not need interpretation, still our hard hearts and deaf ears stand in need of the voice of the hearlds and the preachers in the wilderness. And this again not as though Christ's words were too high and ddep, too obscure and mysterious, but because, as Luther correctly saw, we human beings in our perverse desire to reach false heights, like blind idiots, take no notice of the divine simplicity of the words of Christ.' {Footnote: 'Leipzig, 1857, p. V.'} The first and foremost duty of the exegete consists consists in holding the flighty spirit of man to the simple word of Scripture and, where he has departed from it, to lead him back to the simple word of Scripture." (p. 360)

"This manuductio ad nudam Scripturam {'getting down to the bare Scriptures' - Scaer} was necessary not only in Luther's day. The Church in all ages, up to the Last Day, needs it; for men will always be inclined, 'in their perverse desire to reach false heights, like blind idiots, to take no notice of the divine simplicity of the words of Christ.' Thus our day, too, needs exegetes—they do not have to be in every case professional theologians—who by God's grace possess principally four qualities: 1) they know Scripture to be God's own Word and treat it accordingly; 2) they have learned, from Scripture's own testimony, that Scripture is clear; 3) they concentrate their efforts upon the manductio ad nudam Scripturam; 4) they uncover the deceit practiced when men propose, under the good name of exegesis, to shed light on Scripture by means of their human opinions. Zwingli asserted that 'the most precious words concerning the eternal deity and the true manhood of Jesus Christ' must 'by figures and tropes be made to agree with the right sense that faith demands.'¹⁶⁸ Also, modern theologians assert that Scripture must be 'subordinated' to 'faith' as the highest principle in theology; 'faith' meaning the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing individual (Seeberg, Dogmengesch, 2d ed., II, p. 289)." (p. 361)

Footnote 168: "Quoted from Zwingli's answer to Luther's book Dass diese Worte, etc. (St. L. XX:1196)." (I note however that Vogel gives columns 762-893 for this work.)

“And this constitutes the second part of the work of the true exegete: he must be able to expose the abuse connected in ancient and modern times with the 'exegesis according to the faith' or 'according to the analogy of faith.' Scripture must certainly be intrepreted 'according to the analogy of faith.' But this term in used in a twofold, contradictory sense, with totally different results. Rightly used, it serves the proper interpretation of Scripture. Wrongly used, it serves utterly to pervert Scripture. Luther and the old theologians, who with him took the right course, understand by analogy of faith the clear Scripture passages that require no interpretation, but are lucid in themselves. The sum of these passages constitutes the 'analogy,' or the 'rule of faith.'” (p. 361)

“Diametrically opposed to this view is the false conception of 'faith,' or the 'analogy of faith,' held by all those who do not permit the 'certae et clarae Scripturae,' the 'clear, lucid passages of Scripture,' to constitute the rule, or analogy, of faith, but substitute for it a 'faith' which, with complete disregard of the clear and lucid passages, they have contructed out of their own notions. This 'faith' is to be the light with which to elucidate the clear passages of Scripture, which need no elucidation whatever! The Sacramentarians were exegetes of this type. In order to evade Scripture and retain their own thoughts concerning the Lord's Supper, they proposed that Luther should disregard all passages dealing with the Lord's Supper and, like themselves, construct the doctrine of the Lord's Supper from John 6. The modern theologians belong in the same class of exegetes. In order not to be instructed and reproved by Scripture, but to be able, undisturbed by Scripture, to make the 'pious self-consciousness' the source and norm of theology, they take recourse under the leadership of Schleiermacher and of Hofmann to the 'whole of Scripture.' And the old method of taking the Christian doctrines from the passages which treat of these doctrines they seek to discredit with the cry that this outmoded method converts Scripture into a 'collection of proof-texts.'” (pp. 362-363)

“Back of the proposal of the 'enthusiasts' to explain the words of institution with John 6 lay the thought, more or less clearly expressed, that the sense of all Scripture passages, including the clear ones, must be determined by comparing them with other passages.... Yes, there is the rule: 'One passage must be explained by another,' but, as Luther adds immediately: 'Namely, a doubtful and obscure passage (locus ambiguus et obscurus) must be explained by means of a clear and certain passage.'” (pp. 363-364)

"If the exegete wishes to hold the right course and keep the fountain of the Christian doctrine clear, he must ever bear in mind the divine truth (Ps. 119:105; 2 Pet. 1:19) that 'the Scriptures are a light in themselves,' that Scriptura sua radiat luce. He must reject every interpretation which is based on something outside Scripture.

"This principle takes in both the linguistic usage and the historical circumstances of the text. Interesting and important for apologetics as it is, e. g., to compare the New Testament Greek with the earlier Greek of Homer and with the contemporary Greek of Philo and Josephus and the monuments, etc., in the last analysis the linguistic usage of the New Testament alone decides the matter. We would be violating the fundamental tenet: Scripturam ex Scriptura explicanda esse {'Scripture is interpreted by the Scriptures'}, and introducing an element of uncertainty into our understanding of Scripture if we invested a word or phrase with a meaning which it does not bear in Scripture itself." (p. 365)

"The same applies to the historical statements and circumstances. All historical and chronological data which are needed to the end of time for the correct understanding of Scripture are furnished by Scripture itself. The study of the Old and New Testament contemporary history has been given an undue importance in our day....

"In fact, we go astray in our exegesis of Scripture as soon as we think that the historical background given in Scripture needs to be supplemented by material from secular history and permit this supplementation to have any decisive influence on our exegesis. Such a procedure, too, would be an infraction of the truth that Scripture shines in its own light and would introduce also an element of uncertainty into the interpretation of Scripture, for who will guarantee the correctness of the background taken only from secular history?" (pp. 365-366)