LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1971, Page 237

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 237

right. In Ex. 23:2 God gave the command “Thou shalt not
follow a multitude to do evil” (ie., when it has deviated
from the straight path of truth). Hence, we must pay more
attention to the principle upon which a man bases his sup-
port for a certain truth than to the person speaking and
writing. Even though a whole council expounded Scripture
contrary to the intention of one of the holy writers, we
should look upon such an exposition as a private interpreta-
tion, 2 Pet. 1:20. Consequently, mere private opinion which
offers biased Bible interpretation is rejected, not the exposi-
tion of a private individual who permits Scripture to interpret
itself. In the Nicene Council the contention of one man, Bis-
hop Paphnutius, prevailed, for he defended the right of the
clergy to marry, although the sentiment of the council had
been against it.”

May God graciously prevent that modern theology, hav-
ing originated in our old fatherland, gain ground among us!
Let us be on our guard against it, because it makes the va-
lidity of a doctrine as a Christian dogma depend on the de-
cree of the Church. In doing so, this theology has placed it-
self on the same level with the Roman Catholic Church.

In our next article we shall refute the position of the
Dorpat theologians, who claim that “even the most well-
founded Christian conviction and current result of conscien-
tious and faithful Bible-study” cannot be considered “dogmas
of the Church” before the Church has given her authoritative
voice. That this distinction between Biblical and ecclesias-
tical dogmas is untenable will be our topic next time.

After having shown that the theory of open questions can-
not be supported by assuming a gradual growth of dogmas
through successive decisions of the Church, we shall prove
in the following paragraphs that a doctrine must not first
gain a so-called symbolical recognition before it can become
a dogma of the Church and must not therefore be placed in
the category of open questions until such recognition has
been achieved.

In the first place, this so-called symbolical recognition
cannot be established from the historical development of
symbols. The doctrines embodied in the Symbols were not
included in the various articles in order that they might be-
come doctrines of the Church but were included because they
already were doctrines of the Church. When the Augsburg
Confession was submitted to Emperor Charles V, the Evan-
gelical Estates declared: “In obedience to Your Imperial Ma-
jesty’s wishes we offer, in this matter of religion, the Con-
fession of our preachers and of ourselves, showing what man-
ner of doctrines from the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word
of God has been up to this time set forth in our lands, duke-
doms, dominions, and cities, and taught in our churches.”
(Trigl., p.39.) This statement does not say what manner of
doctrine the followers of Luther were going to preach, teach,
and defend, but what manner of doctrine they had been
teaching, and intended to teach, upon the basis of Scripture,
the pure Word of God. The Symbols are not a law imposed
upon the Church, prescribing what she must believe and
confess in days to come, but a confession, a protocol of what
she already believes and professes. The Augsburg Confes-
sion, therefore, was not accepted as a confession of our whole
Church because it had been drawn up, and was submitted,
by her princes and her most learned theologians. It was ac-
cepted because it set forth the faith that was throbbing in the
hearts of all true Lutherans. The Augustana, accordingly,
begins with these words: “Ecclesiae magno consensu apud
nos docent,” i.e., “Our Churches, with common consent, do
teach,” a statement which must be supplied or repeated in
every article of the Confession. Likewise all the other Lu-
theran Confessions are nothing more than the expression of
the living faith of our Church. The fact that our Church ac-
cepted Melanchthon’s Apology, Luther’s two Catechisms and
the Smaleald Articles, and the Formula of Concord prepared
by Chemnitz and other theologians as her public Confessions
does not lend any support to the argument of those men who
contend that the doctrines set forth in these confessional
writings were thereby for the first time made official dogmas
ef our Church. These doctrines had been the teaching of the
Church before. In the Symbols they merely received eccle-
siastical approval and were accepted. At Trent and Dort the
procedure was different. There men with widely varying
Opinions and of conflicting schools of thought gathered
around conference tables as authoritative representatives of
the Church. They fixed “decrees” and “canons.” Questions

which up to that time had been regarded as “open,” “un-
settled,” “unfinished,” in the Roman and Reformed churches
were declared to be “answered by the Church,” definitely
“decided,” and henceforth “fundamental truths which must
be taught by the Church.” Is it not extremely difficult to ex-
plain how men who espouse the Trent and Dort procedure
can still accuse conscientious, confessional Lutherans of mak-
ing a codex of laws out of the Symbols?

In the second place, our Confessions do not claim to be
a complete system of all doctrines taught by our Church.
They are just a summary of the chief doctrines which our
Church was compelled to defend in the critical Reformation
period. The two Catechisms, for instance, are called enchiri-
dia, handbooks, “small, piain, simple manuals of the chief
parts of Christian doctrine to be used by pastors and preach-
ers in the instruction of the young and old.” Therefore the
doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession close with this
thought: “This is about the sum of our doctrine which is
preached and taught in our churches that men may receive
true Christian instruction, that consciences may be com-
forted, and the believers edified.” (Trigl., p.58.) The fol-
lowing concluding sentence of the whole Augsburg Confes-
sion points in the same direction: “If there is anything that
any one might desire in this Confession, we are ready, God
willing, to present ample information (latiorem information-
em) according to the Scriptures.” (Trigl., p.95.) Also in the
introduction to the Thorough Declaration the Evangelical
Estates declare that in the Augsburg Confession “they clearly
and plainly made their Christian Confession as to what was
being held and taught in the Christian evangelical churches
concerning the chief articles, especially those in controversy
between them and the papists.” (Trigl., p. 847.) Therefore
Carpzov commented on the words of the Augsburg Confes-
sion “This is about the sum of our doctrine” as follows:
“Those who protested added the word ‘about’ deliberately.
They did not intend to compile a catalog of all articles neces-
sary for salvation, but in this Confession they dealt only with
those dogmas which were in dispute and needed conscientious
consideration in the light of God’s Word. Therefore public
decrees have never been attempted, and those who protested
have never promised ‘that they would teach no article in
addition to those found in the Confession.’ They did promise
‘they would teach nothing contrary to the Confessions.’”
(Isagoge in Libb. Symbol., p.115 sq.) This same thought
Carpzov applied to all the other Symbols in the words: “No
symbolical book is an adequate expression of all the articles
and the fundamental dogmas of faith which must be believed.
In each instance when the individual Symbols were being
written, only those dogmas were taken into consideration
which were in dispute and under fire. Herein lies the great
difference between Holy Writ and the Symbolical Books.”
(L.c., p. 4.)

The Jesuits, strangely, assumed a peculiar position. They
insisted that the followers of Luther should not be permitted
to teach any other doctrines than those which they had defi-
nitely set forth in their Confessions; in case the Lutherans
taught additional doctrines, they should be deprived of the
privileges which had been guaranteed them in the Religious
Peace of Augsburg. Therefore, in the well-known Second
Thorough Defense of the Precious Heritage (the Augsburg
Confession) by the theologians of Saxony in the year 1630
the whole eighteenth chapter is devoted to answering the
question: “In view of the Religious Peace may the Evangeli-
cals teach only those articles of faith as necessary for salva-
tion which are expressly enumerated in the Augsburg Con-
fession and teach none which are offensive to the Roman
Church?” The answer naturally was an emphatic “No!” And
the question of the Emperor whether the Evangelical Estates
“intended to draw up, and submit, additional articles or
whether they were satisfied with those which they had al-
ready submitted to His Imperial Majesty” was answered as
follows: “His Imperial Majesty has graciously requested that
the matters pertaining to religion be examined among us in
love and charity and compared with the truth, the Word of
God alone. This has been done in a truly Christian spirit
in our official writing, the Augsburg Confession. Ali abuses,
however, were not specified nor enumerated in this general
Confession because its primary purpose was to set forth in
particular all those doctrines which are preached in our
churches as necessary for the salvation of souls. If His Im-
perial Majesty will study this Confession carefully, he will