# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_October 1858_S300
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

300     What Is Now Understood by the Further Development of the Doctrine of the Lutheran Church?

-as Dr. Philippi binds it, then it is all over with freedom, and all interest in occupying oneself with the development of dogmatics would fall away as well." (see Schmid, Doctor von Hofmann's Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 46.) It may be that this is really the case; but conversely I too may make you this confession: if one is no longer bound to churchly dogmatics, and it is only a matter of developing dogmatics in one's own self-sovereign freedom, then, looking at it from another side, all interest might well fall away for many — not indeed in occupying themselves with dogmatics, but with this particular kind of dogmatics. As, once upon a time, Vilmar's professor said from the lectern, "in futuram oblivionem, gentlemen!" [into future oblivion], so it can easily happen that one now hears, from right within the church, the verdict pronounced over many a learned book: "in oblivionem praesentem, gentlemen!" [into present oblivion]. May the gulf which, as far as I can see, threatens in this decision-laden time perhaps just now more than ever to open between the men of theory and the men of practice not be widened still further, to the harm of the church and of true scholarship — that is, of churchly theology — for want of a timely turning back! Down here in the valley, where I, for instance, stand, one is glad, after the days of the flood, to be gradually finding the old treasures again; and the new waves that seem once more to be coming down from the heights of scholarship do not always strike us, in the daily labor of our calling, as the fruit-bringing water that could procure prosperity for our work. On the serene heights of scholarship, where classical freedom often seems, at least, to be worth more than the need and the daily bread of the church, may one indeed indulge in no illusions, and also look occasionally toward those who, in their practical labors, cannot after all enjoy the cheerful splendor of free scholarship without a good many misgivings. I know well that in a certain normative place it stands written: cetera autem symbola et alia scripta, quorum paulo ante mentionem fecimus, non obtinent autoritatem judicis: haec enim dignitas solis sacris literis debetur: sed duntaxat pro religione nostra testimonium dicunt, eamque explicant, ac ostendunt, quomodo singulis temporibus sacrae literae in articulis controversis in ecclesia Dei a doctoribus, qui tum vixerunt, intellectae et explicatae fuerint et quibus rationibus dogmata cum sacra scriptura pugnantia rejecta et condemnata sint. [But the other symbols and other writings which we mentioned a little before do not possess the authority of a judge; for that dignity belongs to Holy Scripture alone. Rather, they merely bear witness to our religion and set it forth, and show how, at various times, the sacred writings were understood and expounded, in the articles in controversy in the church of God, by the doctors who then lived, and by what reasoning dogmas conflicting with Holy Scripture were rejected and condemned.] The judge, then, is Scripture, and remains so; but there are also witnesses [testes] at all times, and these witnesses were the doctores in ecclesia Dei [teachers in the church of God]. I may confess to you: it gradually becomes quite strange to one's mind at times, when one hears today's Protestant freedom reserving itself as energetically as possible over against these doctoribus in ecclesia [teachers in the church], and, on the other hand, without hearing a great deal about the "testimonium," sees gate and door thrown open to modern arbitrariness in theologizing. If we are to honor our present-day doctores et testes in ecclesia [teachers and witnesses in the church], then we should also wish that the an-