# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1971_S225
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The False Arguments for the Modern Theory
oi Open Questions
by

Dr. C. F. W. Walther
(Translated by Wm. Arndt and Alex Guebert)

From Concordia Theological Monthly
Volume X, Numbers 4—11, 1939

Concordia Seminary Print Shop
Summer 1971

A translation of Dr. C. F. W. Walther's article entitled
“Die falschen Stuetzen der modernen Theorie
von den offenen Fragen.”
Lehre und Wehre, XIV (1868)

In the foreword of the present volume of this journal
we stated in which sense one may without hesitation speak
of open questions. At the same time we declared that we re-
ject the modern theory of open questions. It appears neces-
sary, however, that we point out how untenable the argu-
ments are which are advanced in support and justification
of this theory. Those that are radical say: “The Bible is no
law codex. To deduce a teaching which must be believed
from every incidental utterance of it is a mechanical use of
the Bible. What is important is to penetrate into its spirit,
to lay hold of its system; everything else is merely frame-
work, unessential, unimportant.” It is not necessary to re-
fute this argumentation. It is that of the rationalist. Who-
ever really accepts the Holy Scriptures as God’s Book and
Word, that is, whoever is a Christian, will not speak thus.
For the Christian the Bible is indeed “a law codex,” but not
only that. The Son of God Himself declared: “The Scripture
cannot be broken,” John 10:35. How much more should a
Christian consider every word in the Scriptures as binding
for himself! For him Holy Scripture is indeed “the Law of
the Lord.” Whoever thinks that he can find one error in
Holy Scripture does not believe in Holy Scripture but
in himself; for even if he accepted everything else as true,
he would believe it not because Scripture says so but be-
cause it agrees with his reason or his sentiments. Luther
writes: “Dear friend, God’s Word is God’s Word. No one
dare tinker with it. Whoever blasphemously gives the
lie to God in one word and says that such blaspheming
and criticizing is a little matter blasphemes God in His
totality and considers all blaspheming of God a light mat-
ter. God is One who cannot be divided and here be
praised and there be reprehended, here be honored and there
despised. . . . Consider this: The circumcision of Abraham
is an old, dead matter and no longer either necessary or
profitable. Yet if I say that God at the time did not com-
mand it, my avowal of belief in the Gospel would not help
me. That is what St. James means when he says (chap. 2:10),
‘For whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in
one point, he is guilty of all.’” (Walch, XX, 965.)

Others appeal to the fact that in this life there can be
no absolute unity but merely a fundamental one. They refer
to the apostle’s statement that in the Church many using the
right Foundation build on it wood, hay, and stubble by
teaching erroneous human ideas, which indeed do not stand
the testing fire, but which do not rob one of eternal salvation
because they do not overthrow the one true Foundation,
1Cor.3:10-15. (Cp. article “On the Church” in the Apology
of the Augsburg Confession.) For this reason, so they as-
sert, the old orthodox dogmaticians taught with respect to
doctrines that are non-fundamental one may without jeop-
ardy to one’s salvation argue for or against their acceptance.
—We reply as follows: This justification of open questions
rests on a gross misunderstanding and confusion. In con-
sidering the question, What belongs to the fundamental arti-
cles which a man must know or which one may not deny?

227

APPENDIX A
(President's Report)

the point at issue is not what a Christian may accept or re-
ject in matters of faith, but rather how much of divine truth
is required in order that a person may arrive at, and be pre-
served in, saving faith and how much of saving truth a per-
son may be ignorant of or deny and oppose without making
the existence and continuance of true, justifying, and saving
faith in his heart an impossibility.

We admit that a discussion of this matter is of great im-
portance. In the first place, since the great majority of
church-bodies are polluted with many errors, it is important
to know in which of them, in spite of the existence of fun-
damental errors, one may still find true believers and hence
members of the true invisible Church. Furthermore, even in
orthodox churches in which the Word of God is taught in
its purity and the Sacraments are administered according to
the Lord’s institution, there are many that are weak in Chris-
tian understanding and _ still entertain erroneous views.
Therefore it is highly important to know whether such mem-
bers may nevertheless be regarded as possessing true faith
and, in spite of their weakness in spiritual understanding,
be saved or whether all such weak Christians must be classed
with the lost and condemned. Now, let it be observed that
Paul in 1Cor.3 by no means wishes to say that a Christian
merely has to accept the articles that are fundamental, that
everything else belongs to the category of open questions
where there is liberty and that nobody should look upon
a person askance or censure him when in dealing with mat-
ters of this category he either accepts or rejects what the
Scriptures clearly teach. On the contrary, St.Paul and all
other writers of Holy Scripture testify that a little leaven of
false teaching leavens the whole lump, that no man has the
liberty to add or subtract anything with respect to the Word
of God, and that God looks upon him only as His child who
trembleth at His Word, Is. 66:2. It is very evident, too, that
our old dogmaticians, in pointing out that in respect to non-
fundamental articles there may be a difference of opinion,
do not wish to say that among the teachings clearly revealed
in God’s Word there are open questions concerning which
a person may under all circumstances take any view at all.
This is evident from the fact that among these articles they,
for instance, place the following: the everlasting rejection of
a number of angels, the immortality of man before the Fall,
the irremissibility of the sin against the Holy Ghost, the
burial of Christ, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the
Father and the Son, the creation of the world in six days, the
visibility or invisibility of the Church and its marks. Will
anybody, be his acquaintance with our fathers ever so slight,
hold that they meant to say the Church might tolerate the
teaching that the devil will ultimately be saved, that man
originally was subject to death, that Christ was not buried,
that the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven, that the
Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, that the world
was created in six millennia, etc? Everybody must say that
the old dogmaticians looked upon these points as belonging
to the non-fundamental articles merely because ignorance
as to Scripture-teaching on these matters and the resulting
errors do not preclude the possibility of the existence of true,
justifying faith.

For this reason Quenstedt also, having, like Hunnius,
mentioned among other things the first three points enumer-
ated above, adds: “If these matters are unknown and denied,
such a course does not by itself inflict injury, since no cause
of faith or any fundamental dogma is made invalid through
such denial.” (Theol. did.-pol. I, 352.) By introducing the
restriction by itself, Quenstedt himself indicates that, if a
Christian should come to know or be shown that those non-
fundamental articles are clear Scripture-teaching and if he
should nevertheless deny or oppose them, such a course
would indeed bring him injury, since thereby he would over-
throw not indeed the real and dogmatic [the doctrines of the
Holy Trinity and of justification by grace through faith] but
the organic foundation, Holy Scripture, and thus lose in his
heart the essential foundation, Christ. For this reason Aegi-
dius Hunnius confronted the Jesuits Gretser and Tanner at
the colloquium of Regensburg in 1601 with the following:
“The story of the incest of Judah and Thamar need not be-
come known to all Christians; for there are innumerable be-
lievers who are not acquainted with this story; hence this