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<rtta per quod revelatio divina est ing." 4 And so Scripture is not only an quod est.s Calov says: account of revelation, but it is itself a reve­ / Divine inspiration is considered either as lation. Gerhard says: the source and efficient cause of revelation Scripture is nothing else than divine rev- '.' in the sense that it is the act of God elation embodied in sacred writings. For revealing or as the form of revelation, of the revealed Word of God and Sacred the words revealed. For '6s01CVl:1ua.ta Scripture do not differ in reality, inas­ establishes the Word of God formally as much as holy men of God embodied these being the Word of God, and this distin­ same divine revelations in the Scriptures.1> guishes it specifically, I might add, from It should also be noted at this point that any other word, say, of angels or of men. the orthodox Lutherans would call Scrip­ Thus the Word of God derives its author­ ture revelation because they believed it ity, its majesty and all its power from its always to be revelatory. God. speaks to inspiration. For whatever constitutes a tbing formally and distinguishes it us and reveals Himself to us in Scripture specifically is also the cause of its attri­ today as truly as He made Himself known butes and excellences. of old viva voce and in His great acts. For Scripture is God's Word vere et pro­ Calovis, of course, still speaking specifi­ prie. Scripture is God speaking. This cally, referring to the written Word of Word is the power of very God., and in God, the Scriptures, when he says that in­ this sense not to be distinguished from spiration is the form of revelation. For God's actS. Modern theologians have rep­ this is the revelation we have to do with resented the doctrine of later Protestants .