CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. XXXIII August 1962 No.8
The Will of God in the Ufe of a Christian 453 EUGENE F. KLUG The Word of God in the Theology of Lutheran Orthodoxy 469 ROBERT D. PREUS Homiletics 484 : \ Theological Observer 497 Book Review 502
EDITORIAL COMMITI'EE
VICTOR BARTLING, PAUL M. BRBTSCHER ALFRED O. FUERBRINGER, GEORGE W. HOYER
ARTHUR CARL PIEPKORN, WALTER R. ROEHRS
LEWIS W. SPITZ, GILBERT A. THIELE
Address all communications to the Editorial Committee m care of Walter R. Roehrs, 801 De Mun Ave., St. Louis .5, Mo. The Word of God in the Theology of Lutheran Orthodoxy By ROBERT D. PREUS
(This is the third in a seri~s of study docu in making my observations: Martin Chem ments to be publish~d on the theme "The Theol ogy of the Word," originally prepared and nitz (1522-86), Jacob Heerbrand (1522 presented for discussion to the faculty of Con to 1600), Aegidius Hunnius (1550 to 'cordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. Previous articles 1603), Matthias Haffenreffer (1561 to on this topic appeared in this journal in Decem ber 1960 and May 1961.) 1619), Friedrich Balduin (1575-1627), Leonard Hutter (1563-1616), John Ger HE intention of this paper is not to hard (1582-1637), Caspar Brochmand Toffer a complete delineation of the (1585-1652), John Dorsch (1597 to doctrine of the Word of God in the 1659), John Huelsemann (1602-61), theology of Lutheran orthodoxy, a project John Danllhauer (1603-66), Michael entirely toO vast to be undertaken within Walther 0593-1662), Solomon Glassius v our limited space. Our interest is to learn (1593-1656), Abraham Calov (1612 to what the orthodox Lutheran teachers say 86), John Quenstedt (1617-88), August to us on the specific issues now under de Pfeiffer (1640-98), John Baier (1647 I bate. have therefore restricted this study to 95), and David Hollaz (1648-1713). to a simple~_~9foldpurpo~: (1) to pre This line, extending over a century and sent afi:d analyze what Lutheran orthodoxy a half, represents men who are agreed doc has said on the chief problems concerning trinally, although there is a noticeable de the doctrine of the Word and (2) to offer velopment of terminology and of areas of significant observations regarding the real interest in their theology. On the points concerns and emphases of the old Lutheran herein considered they are essentially teachers in all their discussions de Scrip agreed. tura and de Evangelio ~ for we must un derstand their interests and concerns if we I. THEOLOGY IN GENERAL are to appreciate their theological contri AND REVELATION butions. With this double purpose always (presuppositions and background to the doctrine in mind I shall submit the conclusions of of the Word) Lutheran orthodoxy on the following three A. The orthodox Lutherans speak at issues: great length on the subjects of theology I. Theology in General and Revelation and revelation. I mention briefly only what II. The Meaning of the Phrase "Scrip- seems significant to their subsequent dis ture Is the Word of God" cussion of Scripture as the Word of God and of inerrancy. In contrast to the So III. Inerrancy cinians and Arminians of their day they The following are the more important assume that theology does not change and orthodox theologians whom I have studied that the way of salvation has always been 469 470 WORD OF GOD IN nmOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY the same.1 This is not meant to obscure words, is taken in general as any divine the differences between the Old and New self-disclosure ( patefactio), whether viva Testaments, differences in circumstances voce, whether by divine inspiration, whether (type as opposed to anti type ), time (be by dreams or visions or divine rapture fore and after), and clarity (prophecy as (2 Cor. 12: 1 fl.), or by any other means. contrasted to fulfillment). But the basic God's revelation ?ttl-t' sl;ox'l\v occurred· fact always obtains that God; His truth, when He made Himself known hypostat His way of salvati,on, His theology (con ically ( amoJtQO(/wJt(J)~ ) in the person of sidered originaliter as coming from God), His Son Jesus Christ. (Heb.1:1; John do not change. Christian theology is the 1:18) only true theology, and there is no salvation Specifically the term "revelation" is used ; outside the Christian religion. Against the for God's self-disclosure made to the proph opinion of the syncretistic Helmstedt the ets and apostles by the immediate afHatus ologian Calixtus, it was held that Moham of the Spirit. In this case we are speaking medansand Jews must be considered idol of the revelation which is today the source aters. We notice here the sharp antithesis of theology (for the orthodox Lutherans among Lutherans of that day. often call revelation as well· as Scripture Supernatural or reveiued theology comes the source of theology) . Revelation is to men . (1 ) by immediate inspiration made to man, but man is not in any way (afflatus) or illumination ( irradiatio) and responsible for it. It illumines and in ( 2) by the Word already set down in the forms mao. The revelations of God are writings of the prophets and aposdes.2 therefore not dona Dei sanctificantia but The former is called theologia infusa, the dona ministrantia, for revelation has also latter theologia acquisita. The principium been vouchsafed to those who have not or source of the former is the Word of had the Spirit - Caiaphas, Sapl, Balaam God (considered as action or revelation). and they prophesied. B. The term "revelation" is often used The nature of revelation may vary. For loosely as an equivalent for theology or instance, to the authors of Scripture the the Word of God. The efficient cause of Word was given by an inner afHatus (bene revelation is, of course, God. The causa ficio interioris afflatus). Today revelation e[ficiens minus principalis SeN organica is is made to us through the external Word, God's Word (cE. AC, V). Only through whether preached or read or contemplated. the Word may we become theologians. In the former case the self -disclosure is Revelation is defined as "an external action immediate; in the latter mediate. The ob~ of God whereby he discloses Himself {sese jeer (obiectum) of revelation is God (note: patefedt} to human beings through His not doctrine). By His revelation God Word and makes known to them His sal makes known to us His essence and will, vation." Supernatural revelation, in other He shows us what we are to believe and do (Law and Gospel). The recipient (subiec 1 A. Calov, Systema locON#m theologicorum, tum) of revelation is mankind. Whether (Wittebergae, 1655-77),1, 160ft the revelation be immediate or mediate 2 A. Calov, Isagof!e ad ss. Iheologiam (Wit rebergae, 1556), pp. 92 f. through the words of the prophets and WORD OF GOD IN THEOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY 471
apostles, the author of this self-disclosure But how to describe God's revelation and is always God, and that not merely in the the significance of it was also a revelation. sense that He is the prima veritasand that The very suggestio verborum was a reve everything ultimately has its origin in Him. lation. The dogmaticians distinguish, but The men of God through whom revelation do not separate, revelation and inspiration. takes place may only be considered instru Quenstedt speaks of revelation concurring ments of God revealing. (Acts 11:28; and coinciding with divine inspiration in 21: 10; Judg.4:4; 2 Kings 22: 14) the making of Scripture "when divine The form or essence of revelation is mysteries are revealed by inspiration and inspiration. Forma revelation;'s est aEO inspired by revelation in the same writ JtvE1J veiling acts were always considered reve yet without being deprived of their indi lation by the old Lutherans, but they also viduality, their consciousness or natural considered Scripture to be more than only endowments. The. common view that a human and therefore errant account of Scripture is the Word of God because of revelation. They would not find fault with its divine origin is expressed succinctly in William Temple, for instance, for saying a statement of Gerhard's already alluded to: that the principle of revelation is "the co God is the highest Author of His Word. incidence of event and appreciation." 7 But, ... It is God alone who has come forth unlike Temple, they would insist that the from the hidden abode of His majesty "appreciation" is infallible, because holy and has revealed Himself, His essence and men of God were moved by the Spirit in His will, not only in the work of His crea what they said and wrote in response and tion but· in express words also, words to in appreciation of God's revelatory acts. our firstparems before the Fall as well as to the patriarchs and .prophets during II. ScruPTURE As TIlE WORD OF GoD the Old Testament. Thus it is that the It is unnecessary to give evidence for prophets so often repeat the words C~1 the fact that to Lutheran orthodoxy Scrip nll'l; , "The Lord has spoken," "The Word ture was the Word of God. The theola- of Jahve," "The Word of the Lord came . gians of the orthodox era regularly call {fat:tum est}," "The mouth of the Lord has spoken," "Hear the Word of God," etc. Scripture the voice of God, the very Word And in the New Testament God has of God, and they employ many similar spoken to us through His Son (Heb. 1: 1 ) . expressions. The important question for The Son of God in turn sent forth His our present discussion is what they meant apostles into all the world and said (Luke when they identified Scripture asthe Word 10:16), 'Who hears you hears Me." of God. This question can be answered Through these same apostles as also by first exploring their reasons for calling through the evangelists He willed to have Scripture the Word of God. Their reasons put into writing the necessary elements appear to be two in number. of His divine revelation. Thus God is the Author of Scripture, or to say the same -A. Scripture is called the Word of God thing, God is the Author of the divine by virtue of its divine origin. Scripture revelation which has been incorporated is God's Word becanse God is its Author. . into the Sacred Scriptures.s The human authors of Scripture themselves claim God as the Author of thei.r writings. This idea of the old Lutheran teachers that At this point orthodoxy's monergistic doc Scripture is the Word of God by virtue trine of inspiration becomes apparent. God of its inspiration, its terminus II quo, is is the auto,. primaNUS of Scripture; the opposed to what might be called the prag human authors are His penmen, His matic vieW of neo-orthodoxy totiay that amanuenses, who write by His suggestio, Scripture is the Word of God oOly by His influxus, His affiatus, His mandatum, virtue of its terminus ad quem, its effects, His impulsus, His inspira#o, His dictamen, or rather, the effects of God in making 7 Natflffl, Man and God (London, 1934), 8 Loci theowgici, Locus I, cap. n, par. 12, p.315. n,·17-18. WORD OF· GOD IN THEOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY 473 the Bible the Word of God in an event.9] were borne along by the Spirit of God· To orthodoxy Paulus dixit is Deus dixit. (2 Peter 1:21), and Peter says that the To Barth the Paulus dixit and the Deus Word proclaimed in the New Testament dixit are twO different things and become will remain forever (1 Peterl: 25). The one only when the event of the Word of conclusion on which such evidence con· God takes place. verges is that Scripture is today truly the B. Thus far orthodoxy has called Scrip Word of God and carries with it the power ture the Word of God because of a past and authority of very God. /action. But Scripture is called the Word of A brief excursus on the common d1s~ God also because of a present action tinction between materia and forma willl this, that God today and always speaks be useful in bringing out more preciSely through Scripture. "The Holy Spirit speaks what orthodoxy meant by the expression, i:o us in and through Scripture, and so we "Scripture is the Word of God." The/ must look for the Word and will of the materia of Scriptrire is the letters and words Spirit in these words of Scripture." 10 The and phrases which constitute Scripture. In point is that Scripture is Deus loquens. this sense Scripture is no different from )( is the Word of GOd today. Precisely any other book. The forma of Scripture! this is Calov's point of departure when he is the inspired meaning, the divine sense argues in his Systema 11 that the Scriptures of Scripture, what Quenstedt calls the are vere et proprie the Word of God. His sapientia Dei, the mens Dei, the consilium insistence in this matter is in antithesis to Dei, etc.12 Considered according to its the view of the Romanists and enthusiasts material principle, Scripture is God's Word of all kinds who taught that there was only in a secondary and significative sense a qualitative difference· between the Word (improprie et (j'l1!!av'ttxw~) inasmuch as of God and Scripture, thus denying to it is only the vehicle (oX'l1f.ta) which brings Scripture the power that a Word of God the divine mind, the thoughts of God, would have. A distinction was made be to us. The forma of Scripture is what. tween the inner and outer Word, some makes Scripture what it is - the Word saying that Christ was the inner Word, of God; and it is the forma, the inspired others simply that there was an inner meaning, which is properly (proprie et Word which was not Scripture. At any X1JQtw~) called the Word of God. One rate, Scripture in itself was a dead letter. statement of Gerhard's at this junCture Calov counters that Old Testament Scrip. will perhaps serve to make this important ture is expressly called the words of God distinction clear: (-ta AO'{ta "toV ,'h;oV, Rom. 3: 2 ) . It is By the term "Scripture" we do not mean said to be breathed forth by very God the outer form or signs, that is, the partic (2Tim.3:16), the prophets who wrote ular letters, the act of writing and the words with which the divine revelation 9 K. Barth, ChfH'{:h Dogmatics, trans. G. T. has been written down, so much as the Thomson (Edinburgh, 1936), I, 1, 123 If. matter itself,. and the thing signified, as 10 Gerhard, Dispulationes IheoJog;cae (Jenae, 1625), p.l,116. 12 Op, cit., Pars 1, caput IV, Sectio 2, Quaes- 11 I, 576 If. tio 16, pp. 169 If. ; 474 WORD OF GOD IN THEOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY that which is meant and designated by the We have now arrived at the final con writing, viz., the Word of God, which sideration in coming to an understanding teaches us of His nature and will. Some of Lutheran orthodoxy's doctrine of the vpeople have expressed it this way: The Word. To Lutheran orthodoxy the Word: Word of God may be viewed essentially of God is one. Whatever materia, or outer as the very thoughts which God expresses, mode of expression, the Word of God or nonessentially and accidentally as may take, it is always the same Word of preaching and writing. In other words, as in every writing done by an intelligent God. We may conceive of the Word as and rational agent, so also in the prophetic it is in God originally, or as it was held and apostolic Scripture two things should in the minds of prophets and apostles be be borne in mind: (1) the letters, syl fore the act of writing. We may think of lables, and words which are written and it as cherished in a believer's heart, we are outer symbols indicating and express may speak the Word or read it, but this ing the ideas of the mind, and (2 ) the Word, the divine forma, remains the same. thoughts themselves, which are the things It remains a unity. The things of God do signified, expressed with the symbols of not change when they are contemplated letters, syllables, and words. Accordingly, or spoken of or put into ,writing. It was I in 'the term "Scripture" we include both the same Word which the apostles preached of these, but especially the latter.1S and wrote. (Phil. 3: 1 ) '. It is important to bear in mind that the The so-called prophetic Word (verbum dogmaticians are thinking primarily of JtQo!poQLx6v) and the Word which is in the inspired content when they call Scrip God (verbum Ev()u:i{krov) which we have ture the Word of God. been speaking of thus far are never dis Another related observation might be sociated or separated, from the personal made at this point. When the orthodox Word ( A6y~ uJtoo'ta'tLx6~ ) , through theologians speak of the various properties whom God speaks and works. There can of Scripture, it is essential that we under be no prophetic Word apart from the per stand always whether they are speaking of sonal Word. Calov, commenting on the the forma of Scripture or the materia or "God said" of Gen. 1: 3 makes this espe both. The so-called normative authority cially clear: of Scripture refers primarily to the materia The word "God said" does not merely of Scripture; so also do the clarity of mean a Word of command; but inasmuch Scripture and the inerrancy of, Scripture. as God does not command anything or The so-called causative authority of Scrip do anything except through His hypostatic ture, its power, is due entirely to its forma. Word, "through whom all things were In other words, the Word of God, whether made" (John 1: 3 ), the term "God said" read from a book, preached from a pulpit, must in this instance where the creation or treasured in our hearts, is always the of things is spoken of be taken, on the power of God, whatever the outer form one hand, ~ the Word by whom God the it may take. Father spoke, the hypostatic Word, through whom the Father speaks and works and IS Loci theologici, Locus I, cap. I, par. 5, without whom He neither speaks nor II, 14. . works, and, on the other hand, as the WORD OF GOD IN THEOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY 475 Word which He spoke or uttered, the is mediated to the human mind. That the prophetic Word, the Word of command, Bible as a whole is such a means will be as a divine impulse {motus dillinus}.14 maintained throughout this book. But in the literal sense the Bible consistS of the In this connection it is only proper to say "words" of men - or rather of their vis that the words of God are more than mere ible symhols in writing. It is not the words, they are deeds (res). And the per utterance of God in the same sense in sonal Word is not merely the Logos which it is the utterance of men. Not God through whom God speaks to man, but but Paul is the author of the Epistle to He is the Heart and Center of all the the Romans, though in a transferred sense prophetic Word (scopus ae centrum ad we may describe the Epistle to the Romans quod referunttw omnia in Scripturis ... as a "Word of God," meaning that in immo epitome & summa universae Scrip some way it mediates to the reader the turae).10 truth which is the thought of God. God is the Author not of the Bible, but of the Now ali this is the background to the life in which the authors of the Bible language of orthodoxy in calling Scripture partake, and of which they tell in such \/the Word of God. The position of or imperfect human words as they could thodoxy might be termed the older vere command. The importance of this fairly et proprie view in contrast to what I might obvious and elementary distinction is that call the modern equivocal view. As an it exposes the fallacy of arguing from an example of this modern view allow me admission that the Bible is "the Word of for purposes of comparison to quote some God" to the conclusion that it must possess thing written by C. H. Dodd: God's own infallibility. The words of a man, assuming that they are the delib It is often claimed that the Bible must be erate expression of his ineanIng, command an infallible external authority, because it just that measure of authority which we is "the Word of God." God certainly is recognize in the man himself.16 the author of truth; if He has spoken, His Word must possess absolute authority. Let Compare now this statement of Dodd's us hold to that maxim: authority belongs with the following words of John Gerhard, to God, and what He says, and that alone, and you will discern the diversity between infallibly compels assent. But in the ex the two views. Gerhard says: pression "the Word of God" lurks an If you read the letter of a friend, you are equivocation. A word is properly a means of communicating thought, through vibra persuaded that you are hearing there the tions of the vocal cords, peculiar to the voice and sentiment of that friend. If you human species. The Eternal has neither hear the judgment of a ruler repeated from breath nor vocal cords; how should He a document, you conclude that you are . speak words? Clearly enough the term hearing the decision of that same ruler. ':Word of God" is a metaphorical expres Now the Word of God is set forth for us sion. We mean by it, a means whereby in the canonical Scriptures. Hence in those l the "thought" of God, which is the truth, writings and through the Scriptures God speaks to us. Thus this Scripture is called 14 A. Calov, Commentarius in Genesin (Winebetgae, 1671), 1,148. 16 The Auth01'ily of the Bible (London, 15 Calov, Systema, 1,457. 1958), p.16. rti: 476 WORD OF GOD IN THEOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY the oracle of God; because indeed it is the never separated from the Word. That is voice of God,11 to say, whenever and wherever the Word A word must now be said regarding the . is preached or read or pondered it is God's doctrine of the efficacy of Scripture in the power. The Word is powerful even ante theology of orthodoxy, for this bears on et extra usum, for actus securulus prae our previous discussion. What orthodox supponit primum: i. e., if the Word is-. Lutherans taught on the power of the powerful in action it is powerful before Word of God follows directly from their . action. The Word is God's power because concept of the Word of God. When they it is God's Word. God's Word, simply speak of the efficacy of the Word they are because it is God's Word, has the same not thinking of Scripture specifically, but attributes as God Himself. Here we see of the divine Word in general, whatever the implications of the old Lutheran doc· mode of expression it may assume. It is trine of the Word of God. Nanttally such not my present concern to trace their a teaching would be quite unsatisfactory proofs for their position. Suffice it to say to Calvinists and enthusiasts of every kind that Quenstedt, for instance, devotes about who held that the Word of God, written 75 percent of his entire dogmatics to the or preached, viewed formally or materially, exegesis of pertinent passages. I merely was dead and powerless until the Spirit want to point up very briefly the connec of God entered the scene. Today we are tion between what they say on this point faced with an exact repristination of this with what they have previously taught on attitude in the theology of Barth, who says, the Word of God in general. "The Bible is God's Word so far as God The Word of God, the verbum :rq~ocpo lets it be His Word," according to "God's Ql-XOV, has the intrinsic power to convert free act in which and through which here men. It is the means of grace (vehiculum) and now He lets it be true in us and for us, through which the Holy Spirit works con that man's words in the Bible is His own version and faith and other spiritual effectS. Word, etc., etc." 18 It is not a passive instrument, as a stone To all the objections and pleadings of is passive which a man throws against the Reformed and theerithusiasts the or a window. It is an instrumentum coopera thodox Lutherans reply that the power of tivum (Baier). This may recall what Calov God and the power of His Word are the said above, that the Word of God is action, same. The work of the Spirit of God and res, motus. The power of the written and the work of the Word are not two works, preached Word resides only in the forma. nor are they the union of. two distinct It is a power which resides in the Word, operations, but they are one work, a unity . not a power which sporadically enters the Word from without, where and when it of result (unitas Wc01;EAE(jlt{l1;O~ seu efJec pleases God. The Word is never otiosum tus) and a unity of operation (unitas but always operosum. And although the EVEQyda; & operationes). God cannot be power of the Word can be resisted, it is separated from His Word. Any Word which proceeds from God brings God 17 Loci Iheologici, Locus I, cap. VII, par. 455, fl,360. _.- 18 ChUf'cb Dogmatics, I. 1. 123. WORD OF GOD IN THEOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY 477 -/ with it. We note here the Christo logical (&:n:oQQota quaedam divina) . What is emphasis in this doctrine of the Word: meant here is that the Word of God can the Word brings Christ, He is in the Word, never be separated from God, just as my He confronts us in the WordY) Here we - word can never be separated from me. see also the soteriological orientation so On this view I can hear a sermon drawn fundamental in Lutheranism's doctrine of from Scripture or read the words of Scrip the Word. And we see finally the active !lire and say, "That is God's Word; that and dynamic nature of Lutheranism's doc is God speaking," in much the same way trine of the Word.20 To all this the Re as I can sit in my living room listening formed could only complain that the Lu to my hi-fi and say, "That is Maria Callas therans had deified Scripture. The reply singing," although I have never met or was that it is not wrong to deify what is seen the woman directly. Her singing is already divine. The Scriptures considered a part of her. In a more meaningful sense formally as the mens Dei and consilium God's Word is a part, an MOQQot no untruth existed or could exist in their and precisely what they meant by in preaching or writing because the Holy errancy. Spirit, who is the Spirit of truth and the A. We find our orthodox Lutheran the Fountain of all wisdom and who had as His hand and pen the holy writers, cannot ologians attacking a great number of other deceive or be deceived, neither can He teachers who took a more liberal view on err or have a lapse of memory.21 the question of inerrancy, Romanists, So cinians, Arminians, and Reformed. It Next a quote from Calov: should not surprise US that so many were Because Scripture is God's Word, which thinking along freer lines. Empiricism and is absolutely true, Scripture is itself truth the scientific method were coming into (Ps. 119:43,86,142,160; John 17:17, their own in the 17th century and were 19; d.2 Sam. 7:28; Ps. 33:4; Gal. 3:1; gaining ascendancy over men's minds, espe Col. 1:5; 2 Tim. 2:18; 2 Tim. 3:8; cially the minds of men of letters - in Titus 1: 1 and James 1: 18). Thus what cluding theologians. It was a growing ever" the Sacred Scriptures contain is fully opinion among learned men that Scripture true and to be accepted with utmost cer must be read and understood in the light tainty. Not only must we hold that to be true which is set forth in Scripture of empirical evidence. August, Pfeiffer concerning faith an.d mores, but we must speaks against the "Cartesians" of his time hold to everything that happens to be .in who said that Scripture must be interpreted cluded therein. Inasmuch as Scripture has in the light of the philosophy and science been written by an immediate and divine of the day, and if there is no agreement impulse and all the Scd ptures recognize we must be content that the writers of Him for their Author who cannot err or Scripture wrote according to common con be mistaken in any way (Heb. 6: 18), no temporary opinions, and therefore could untruth or error or lapse can be ascribed not speak the truth in all matters.23 to the God-breathed Scripture, lest God 22 Pfeiffer answers: "We grant that when Himself be accused. Scripture speaks of divine and profound From both of'these passages it is apparent matters it speaks to the understanding of that inerrancy derives from the divine its day, limited as it was {loqui ad captum origin of Scripture. Because Scripture hominis, etiam plebiiJ." But he would not comes to us from God it can contain no take the next step: "But we deny that contradiction or error of facty' Ultimately Scripture speaks according to common all the arguments for inerrancy are reduced errors in things of nature." The point to this one proofi Therefore I need not I wish to make is this: Even though it, belabor this point any further. be granted that the apparent conflict be To appreciate the position of orthodoxy tween conclusions drawn from empirical on this matter, however, we must under data and statements of Scripture was not stand why they took the stand they did so intense as today, the orthodox theolo gians of the 17th century were very alive 21 Systema, Pars I, Caput IV, Sectio 2, Quaes tio 5, p.79. 23 ThesaMus Hermeneuticus (Lipsiae et 22 SYSIem4, I, 462. Francofurti, 1704), p. 25. WORD OF GOD IN THEOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY 479 to the issue and faced it squarely. Their other." 24 However, in their exegetical statements on the inerrancy of Scripture works the theologians of the era take were not made in a vacuum.. The teachers great pains to explain and clear up the of the previous century had not made such difficulties and apparent discrepancies in full statements on the subject. It was Scripture. Notable but not unique in this . after struggle and smdy that they said connection is a book by Michael Walther what they felt had· to be said on this which we might consider briefly. The book matter. is entitled Harmonia biblica, sive brevis i--'---~ B. There are two kinds of error with et plana conciliatio locorum VeJeris eJ which Scripture can be charged and which Nov;' Testament; apparenter sibi contra concerned the later orthodox Lutherans: dicentium (Noribergae, 1654) .25 The (1) Cases in which one section of Scrip- book is over 1000 pages long. Walther . ture does not cohere or harmonize with insists at the start that there can be no another section in which Scripture seem contraries, or contradictions, in Scripture. ingly contradicts itself. Here is a conflict If contradictions seem to occur, it must which is analytic. (2) Cases in which be remembered what makes two statements statementsO£SCtipture do not seem to contradictory: (a) they do not speak to correspond to the apparent data in the the same termini in number and order, external world (astronomy, geography, (b) they do not refer to the same part topography, etc..) or to the accepted facts of the subject, (c) at the same time, and of history. Here is a conflict which is ( d) in the same sense, (e) the one state ~y.1!t!!.~is:. It is perhaps with the first ment affirms and the other denies. Walther problem that the Lutheran theologians are argues deductively from the divine origin most concerned. However, as we shall see, of Scripture, from the fact that Scripture they are also alive to the second problem. is God's Word; and what God speaks, How they meet each problem I shall now though it may not be clear to us, is clear trace in some detail. in itself. Otherwise we could not pray 1. The first problem is faced by all the with the psalmist that we might learn the theologians of orthodoxy. This was an will of God (Ps. 143: 10). Contradictions old question which plagued every serious in Scripture would be due to God, to the theologian who read his Bible and found penmen, or to the interference of the later apparent discrepancies there. The tendency church.. One can only answer that God of many of the orthodox Lutherans, at least cannot lie, the penmen were moved by the in their systematic works, is at first to Spirit and protected from error, and the dismiss the problem by asserting a priori providence of God does not allow the that contradictions in Scripture areooly church to defile His holy Word. apparent, inasmuch as God, the Author of Walther lists many reasons for apparent Scripture, cannot lie or contradict Himself. Thus we find Gerhard saying, "All Scrip 24 Tractatfls de iegitima SC1'iptMae Sauae in ture is inspired and accordingly all the terprelalione (Jenae, 1663), p, 25. things in Scripture are in some agreement 25 Cf. S. Glassius, Phitotogia sacra, editio nova (Lipsiae, 1713). A Pfeiffer, Dubia vexata and are not contrary or opposed to each Script1I1'ae Sacrae (Dresdae, 1678) 480 WORD OF GOD IN THEOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY contradictions in Scripture and for the fact (Calov, for. instance, was an authority on that no immediate solution is found 'to law and philosophy, a first-rate mathema I these problems. (a) Ignorance of the tician and logician, and he wrote books original languages, its peculiarities, figures on all. these subjects. His outlines in phi of speech, etc. (b) Equivocation and am losophy contained sections on every branch biguity of language, d. Mark 12:43, where . of learning.) . Christ uses the term "more" equivocally, In his Systema Calov (so also Dann in the sense that one gives "more" accord hauer, Hollaz, Quenstedt) devotes special ing to his ability. (c) Neglect of context. . attention to the following question: (d) Hasty consideration of the attendant Whether faith should be extended to those circumstances of the text, e. g., ignoring matters in Scripture which do not pertain the person speaking or spoken to, or the expressly to religion, such as refer to ·the time, place, mode, scope, of the statement. physical sciences, mathematics, etc., or ( e) Overhasty linking and relating of whether these things are spoken of only Bible passages. Statements which speak in a rough manner (:Jto.xulro~)? 26 of diverse things cannot be contradictory. Calov answers the question, "In the whole (f) Misuse of our reason, which does not &ripture there can be no error, not even understand the things of God. To attempt in minor matters, no memory failures, no to understand and then to harmonize the untruth." 27 Quenstedt profferS a more things of God is Sadduceeism. (g) Failure elaborate answer to the question: . to pray over our difficulties. Walther next The holy canonical Scriptures in their offers general rules of hermeneutics which original text are the infallible truth and sometimes help to solve our difficulties, are free from every error, that is to say, and .finally he takes up book by book, and in the sacred canonical Scriptures there is very meticulously, the speci.fic discrepancies no untruth, no falsehood, no error, not even which seem to occur in Scripture. a minor one, either in content or words, but each and everything which is presented 2. The second problem, pertaining to to us in Scripture is most true, whether the possibility of errors of fact in Scripture, it pertains to dOCtrine, ethics, history, was fully as trouqlesome as the firSt. But chronology, topography, or onomastics, and the problem was not dodged by the or no ignorance or lapse of memory can or thodox theologians. It must be repeated should be ascribed to the amanuenses of that these men were not living in a pre the Holy Spirit in their writing of holy 28 Scientific age. They were aware of the Scriptures. issues that faced them in this matter and It is of interest to trace how Calov attacks of the implications of affirming a doctrine this question. He begins with a reference of inerrancy of Scripture. They were in to several prevalent opinions of his day. fact better equipped to meet the onslaught First, it was quite commonly,held among of empiricism in their day than we are certain philosophers and others that Scrip- today, first because they had fewer prob- lems of this nature to cope with, and 26 I, 606 fE. 27 S;ystema, I,55!. secon d b ecause they were more b roadl y 28 Op. cit., Pars I, caput IV, sectio II, Quaes- educated than we in our specialized age"cc -rio 5, p. 77. WORD OF GOD IN THEOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY 481 ture spoke in a careless fashion when men tures do not accommodate themselves to tioning matters not pertaining to the real error. purpose of Scripture. Accordingly, no We now continue our sketch of Calov's apodictic cenainty can be derived from discussion on inerrancy. He is speaking anything Scripture says on such matters against the Socinian position that what ,( e. g" it would be improper to seek proofs does not refer directly to matters of faith from Scripture for a theory on the move in Scripture is not necessarily true. He ment of the earth). Second, Socinians and argues that should Scripture say anything ~nain Arminians taught that Christ in clearly false in matters not pertaining to His conversations accommodated Hi'mse!f salvation, it will not be free of error. to errors and to the ordinary misconcep Either it will have to be considered no tions of the day. The apostles did the longer the Word of God in all things same, and they. did so purposely. It was which it touches, or God speaking in this therefore not necessary to accept the events Word makes Himself liable for error. recounted in' Scripture as true or to be "Such thinking is irreverent." God will not' lieve the sermons offered therein, unless sponsor error in order to avoid a possible ,., a chief article of faith was involved. Calov, greater danger of misunderstanding (Rom. of course, did not wholly reject such 3:8). What God says in His Word is . a theory of accommodation. He taught never only probable, but always infallible, a doctrine of condescension ( GUV'KtX'tcl and this in whatever area it may touch. ~a(Jt';;) according to which the Spirit of It is as 'absurd as it is irreverent 'to sup God caused Scripture to be recorded not pose that a divine testimony does not in only in the ~customed speech and style all points require of us /ides divina in of the holy writers but also in a style God, who is speaking. If there be errors which was clear and well suited to the in Scripture, then Pyrrhonism inevitably hearers and readers/·!9 This was the gen results. All Scripture becomes suspect, and eral persuasion of all the orthodox Lu we have only academic probability also in therans. Dannhauer, for instance, says: those matters which. pertain to our salva The Holy Scripture often adjusts its lan tion. After contending for the inerrancy guage not so much to the actual existence of Scripture by appealing to its divine of a thing as to the common opinion of origin and its nature as God's Word, Calov men, as when it calls Joseph the father of offers this final summary statement, which Christ because this was what was thought I think is worth quoting; by the common people, or when it says If the source of theology (divine revela '. that stars fall from heaven, becauSe unin- tion) is not entirely infallible, sure, and SO formed people think comets are stars. certain, but is only probable and limited We learned above that August Pfeiffer held to its day (topicum), then no theological the same view. But with one voice the conclusions are infallible and sure, for orthodox Lutherans insist that the Scrip- a conclusion cannot be more certain than its own proper and legitimate basis. If this axiom, "Whatever God bas spoken is 29 Systema, I, 575. so He'Tmeneutita saC'Ta (Argentorati, 1654), infallibly true and to be believed with p.409. complete assurance," is not categorically 482 WORD OF GOD IN THEOLOGY OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY binding, but is made relative and doubtful, were set forth as an absolute assertion then some things have been spoken and (Quae relative dicunttH, non accipienda, promulgated by God that are only prob q. assertiveprolata). able and not to be held with certainty as c. Things are often described in Scrip being absolutely necessary (apodicticam). ture in a phenomenal manner, not as they In that case, who could make any definite really are (In Scriptura nonrmnquam res afli.rmation or conclusion in theology about anything that is set forth in God's Word describitzw ut est