# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juni 1858_S182
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

182 Irvingism.

...arranged together and, with differing valuation (there, among the
prophets of Languedoc, chiefly from the Old Testament, Joel 3:1ff.; here
preferably Isa. 1:22-26; in both cases equally from the New Testament,
Eph. 4 and 1 Cor. 12), invoked in order to support such a theory. But as
regards the phenomenon we have in view here, whose advocacy the three
writings named above — following many others, since the publication of
the Irving manifesto and since the appearance of the book "The Church
of Christ in Our Time" (1845) — have taken up with all their strength,
it differs from the preceding ones in several respects, which are, to
be sure, chiefly conditioned by the more advanced development of the
church of Christ and of its struggle. For it is not merely the forces
that show themselves active here (religious and theological at once),
nor merely the devotion with which this cause is served, that lend
significance to the phenomenon of the pretended Irvingian renewal of
the church; rather it is above all the elements which serve as its
foundation, out of which Irvingism builds itself up. For it is indeed
not to be denied that, on the one hand, it builds to a great extent
with materials taken from our own churchly development; the result of
the churchly and believing scholarship of our day it has not only
behind it, but before it. The doctrine of baptism, as it is set forth
in No. 3, is purely Lutheran; the collegial system, however — or, if
one prefers, the "Christocracy" — as it expresses itself in No. I, is
no new apostolic-prophetic revelation, but was won by the Lutheran
church in the sweat of her brow. Just as little can it be denied that
Irvingism, on the other hand, leans on the dominant anti-churchly
sympathies of our time: its indifference toward "the confession" and
"the symbols," which at most are grasped as a memorial of a bygone
strength of faith and fidelity, is already sufficient proof of this.
Finally there is added the element peculiarly Irving's own, which at
least in part mingles with the two preceding elements and brings forth
a quite peculiar σύγχρασις [amalgam]. That all this makes the critique
of the Irvingian theory more difficult is perhaps best seen from the
fact that such a critique has not even yet been attempted. We cannot,
therefore — also on account of our natural limits — take it upon
ourselves to offer such a critique here; we would, however, like to
give a few pointers that might serve as a basis for a subsequent, more
comprehensive examination.

The Irvingian doctrine, then, attempting its own grounding and
justification (which is the principal subject of the lectures contained
in No. 3), expresses itself essentially as follows. This doctrine, it
is said, is by no means a result of theological research, not a fruit
grown on the tree of German scholarship (indeed, the true bearers of
the faith are not to be found in academic chairs); rather, what has
happened here is a repetition of what, from the beginning, according to
Matt. 11:25ff., 1 Cor.