LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1971, Page 242

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

242 PRESIDENT’S REPORT

tion for the theory of open questions necessarily leads to
complete destruction of all purity and unity in doctrine.
2. “Quum duo dicunt idem, non est idem,” i.e., when two
men seem to say the same thing, the meaning is not always
the same. 3. When influential, esteemed orthodox teachers
of a past generation deviated in some point, there was no
one, as a rule, who noticed this deviation or, if he did, he
did not possess the courage to contradict the influential
teacher. 4. Because of increasing wide-spread indifference
and vigorous attacks on Christian doctrine, times arise when
it is more important and necessary than otherwise to attack
even the smallest deviation in a certain point of doctrine.

The foregoing argument may suffice to prove how futile
it is to seek support for the theory of open questions in the
writings of recognized orthodox teachers because they erred
in certain points. In this entire question much is at stake.
We must always defend and preserve the chief principle of
Protestantism, the fact that the norm of all doctrine is not
posited in human writings, but alone in the Word of God.
Let men continue to flaunt a naevus from our old, highly
honored orthodox teachers whenever their unionistic theory
of open questions is attacked. Let them maintain they want
the Lutheran doctrine of Sunday which they admit is Scrip-
tural to be considered as an open question because Gerhard
erred therein. As good Protestants we shall always meet
them with the words “Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, amicus
Lutherus, amicus Gerhardus, sed magis amica veritas, magis
amica Scriptura Sacra.” And with St. Paul and all the apos-
tles we say: “But though we or an angel from heaven preach
any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached
unto you, let him be accursed,” Gal. 1:8.

Finally, the proponents of the modern theory of open
questions advance the argument that there are doctrines of
faith in the Bible which God did not reveal in clear-cut,
unmistakable terms. .. .

Every one, with the exception of the papist perhaps, will
admit the Biblical attributes of perspicuity and clarity
(perspicuitas et claritas). Holy Writ lays claim to these
attributes in almost countless passages. Since the Bible is
the revelation of God to men who are sitting in darkness
and in the shadow of death, a lamp unto their feet and
a light unto their path on the way to life everlasting, it must
be clear; and every one who believes in Holy Writ gladly
confesses the reality of this clearness. Who of us will deny
that God, the Creator of human speech, is able to speak
clearly? Who will deny that God, the eternal Truth, Wisdom,
and Love, intended to speak clearly? Who will deny that
God actually did speak clearly, yea, was obligated to speak
clearly, in that Scripture which He inspired for just one
purpose — to tell man what he must know in order to be
saved? These denials can be made only by one who either
does not believe in God or at least not in the divine origin
and purpose of the Bible.

It is indeed true that some passages in Holy Writ are more
or less obscure, e.g., passages with historical, archeological,
8eographical, chronological, ethnological, genealogical, and
onomastic difficulties or prophecies whose correct solution
will be necessary and possible only when they have been
fulfilled. Linguistic difficulties in certain chapters also pre-
vent us from fully comprehending the sense intended by the
sacred writers. On these points the readers and exegetes of
the Bible cannot arrive at an apodictic interpretation but
can reach only a probable one. In the first place, this lack
of absolute certainty cannot be attributed to the fact that
the Bible itself is obscure in this or that passage; it merely
seems to be obscure because the teacher or exegete is not
able to verify all the recorded historical data, is puzzled by
grammatical or lexical questions, etc. The obscurity is not
objective, but subjective. In the second. place, this whole
question of subjective obscurity is irrelevant to the point
which we are considering in this series of articles, namely,
Does the Bible actually contain articles of faith — the doc-
trine of Sunday, for instance — which are not clear and
therefore can easily be misunderstood? Even though a per-
son has no knowledge of, or only an imperfect knowledge of,
historical data and related facts, yet he is able to find and
walk the way of salvation under all circumstances without
any hindrance. But in order to be saved, he must know and
believe the articles of faith. Without the clear divine revela-
tion and the knowledge of these articles it is impossible not
only for the “man of God,” the theologian, to use the Scrip-

ture for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness, in order to be made perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16, 17), but also for
the layman to walk the way of salvation under all cireum-
stances without any hindrance. Scripture is the complete
revelation of the way of salvation; therefore it must be clear,
exact, and unambiguous in all articles of faith. Whoever
denies this fact denies the fundamental doctrine of the clarity
of Scripture. Therefore, Aug. Pfeiffer began his book on
Hermeneutics with the following words: “The papists and
we have been earnestly debating the question whether Holy
Scripture, especially in matters of faith and morals, is suf-
ficiently clear or possibly obscure. The papists claim it is
obscure; we maintain that it is clear, although we do make
several, especially two, restrictions. In the first place we
distinguish between a total and a partial obscurity. We
admit that there is a partial obscurity, i.e., we take into
account those passages of Holy Scripture that are obscure
and present difficulties which we cannot satisfactorily solve.
Onomastic (questions pertaining to proper names) and chro-
nological difficulties and gaps in the genealogy of Christ
cast a shadow over some portions of Scripture so that no
Bible student is able to remove all those difficulties. ‘For
the Holy Ghost (as Augustine says in the twelfth book of
his De Doctrina Christiana) has organized the books of the
Bible in such a wonderful, salutary way that He wanted to
satisfy the hunger of the soul through the passages which
are clearer than others and to ward off satiety through those
which are obscure.’ (Ita magnifice et salubriter Spiritus
Sanctus Scripturas Sanctas modificavit, ut locis apertioribus
fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret.) At
the same time we deny that the Holy Scriptures are totally
obscure and maintain especially that every dogma pertaining
to faith and morals is set forth somewhere in Holy Writ in
language so clear and unequivocal that any one who searches
the Bible conscientiously can know and believe it. In the
second place, we distinguish between subjective and objec-
tive obscurity and say that Holy Writ is not obscure eo ipso
nor with respect to the object that must be known if faith
in the true God is to be engendered. It is obscure only
through certain circumstances (per accidens) in the subject
who does not fully comprehend its meaning because of im-
proper training or equipment, being handicapped either by
lack of necessary knowledge or because of an evil disposition
of soul.” (Thesaur. Hermeneut., p.1sq.)

Luther testifies repeatedly that the seeming obscurity of
Scripture is due primarily to an imperfect knowledge of the
language, and is subjective, not objective. To Erasmus he
wrote: “If there is any obscurity in Scripture, it is due here
and there to the words and idiomatic phrases of the language,
or to use a Greek term, due to grammar. It is, in general,
such an obscurity as does not prevent any one from grasping
the sum and substance of Scripture — the dogmas.” (Walch,
XVIII, 2068.) In another connection he wrote: “The Sophists
have said that Scripture is obscure; they have supposed that
it is a characteristic of the Word of God to use obscure, odd
terms. But they fail to see that the difficulty lies in the
languages themselves. If it were possible for us to under-
stand the languages perfectly, nothing would be so easy to
grasp as the Word of God. The Turkish language is jargon
to me because I do not understand it; yet a Turkish child
of seven years readily comprehends his own tongue.” (Letter
to the Mayors and Aldermen of All Cities of Germany in
Behalf of Christian Schools, St. L., X, 473.)

It is also true that there are passages in Holy Writ which
contain no references to historical data, etc., but which speak
of doctrines of faith and yet are not free from obscurity.
Some indeed are so obscure that they seem to contradict
other passages which are clear. But this fact does not furnish
any ground for supposing that Scripture contains doctrines
of faith which are not clearly and unmistakably revealed.
The clarity and perspicuity of Scripture are vindicated by
this particular point: all doctrines of faith, although some of
them are referred to in a few obscure Scripture passages,
are without exception expressed in clear, unambiguous
words, which enable the conscientious Bible student to
understand the obscure passages. A denial of this is a denial
of the clarity of Scripture, a denial that we really have
a sure prophetic apostolic Word, a light that shines in a dark
place, a sun that comes out of his chamber like a bridegroom
and rejoices like a strong man to run his course; a sure