Theology, considered objectively, is Christian doctrine, or Bible doctrine, which, as we have seen before, is inspired in all its parts, so that in the whole Bible there is not a single teaching which is not divinely given and profitable for salvation. Nevertheless, while it is the scope and purpose of the entire Bible to save sinners from eternal perdition, distinctions must be made between the various Bible doctrines regarding their special function and importance. We thus speak of 1) Law and Gospel; 2) fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines; 3) theological problems, or open questions.
The distinction between Law and Gospel is one that is made by Holy Scripture itself. For while at times the term Law is used for the entire Word of God or every revealed truth in Holy Scripture (Ps. 1, 2; 19, 7; 119, 97), nevertheless this term, in its proper and narrow sense, has a distinct meaning, which properly does not apply to the whole revealed Word of God. So, too, the term Gospel is sometimes applied to the entire doctrine of the Bible (Mark 1,1-15; Phil.4,15). Yet in its strict sense each of these terms denotes a definite message, which must not be identified with the entire Scripture content. Therefore, properly or strictly speaking, the Law is not Gospel, nor is the Gospel Law, but the two are opposites. Accurate definitions of them will readily prove this. The Formula of Concord defines the Law thus: "The Law is properly a divine doctrine which teaches what is right and pleasing to God and reproves everything that is sin and contrary to God's will." The same confession defines the Gospel in its narrow sense as follows: "The Gospel is properly such a doctrine as teaches what man who has not observed the Law and therefore is condemned by it is to believe, namely, that Christ has expiated, and made satisfaction for, all sins and has obtained and acquired for him, without any merit of his, forgiveness of sins, righteousness that avails before God, and eternal life." (Epitome, V, 2. 4.) These definitions are Scriptural and nicely show the fundamental difference between the Law and the Gospel. How essential this difference is, is obvious from the fact that Holy Scripture expressly excludes the Law from the province of salvation. Its pronouncement is: "By grace are ye saved, ... not of works," Eph. 2, 8. 9. "Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified," Rom. 3, 20. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law," v. 28.
This distinction between the Law and the Gospel, which is so clearly taught in Holy Scripture, the Christian theologian must conscientiously observe and neither weaken the condemning force of the Law nor diminish the saving comfort of the Gospel. He must declare without qualification the whole guilt and condemnation of sin which the Law reveals. Ezek. 3, 18: "When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die and thou give him not warning nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way to save his life, the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." So also the Christian theologian must proclaim fully and without any qualification the whole consolation of the Gospel with its matchless offer of divine grace, pardon, and eternal life. Matt. 11, 28 : "Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." 1 Cor. 2, 2: "For I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified."
Unless the Law and the Gospel are thus preached as two distinct and contradictory doctrines (Luther: plus quam contradictoria), the Christian religion is deprived of its distinct content, is paganized by the introduction of work-righteousness as a cause of salvation, and is therefore rendered incapable of saving sinners. The sinner indeed needs the Law in order that he may know his sin and the condemnation of God which rests upon him because of his sin; but he needs the Gospel in order that he may know divine grace, which through Christ Jesus has fully removed his sin and offers full forgiveness to him. Gal. 3, 10: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them"; v. 13: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us." Whenever the Law with its condemnation is weakened and sinners are taught to rely for salvation on the works of the Law, though only in part, then the Gospel, too, is corrupted, since a weakened Law means a weakened Gospel. The final result is that the sinner is robbed of the salvation which is offered in the Gospel; for this offer is received only by those who implicitly trust in its divine promises and cast themselves upon God's mercy, in short, by those who absolutely repudiate the error of salvation by works. Gal. 5, 4: "Christ is become of no effect unto you whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace." Gal. 3, 10: "As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse." As the Law must forever remain the "ministry of condemnation," so the Gospel must forever remain the "ministration of righteousness," 2 Cor. 3, 9. For a person is a Christian only in so far as he comforts himself against the terrors of conscience with the free and full promise of forgiveness, "without the deeds of the Law."
This fundamental truth requires special emphasis to-day in view of the fact that both Romanism and modern Protestant sectarianism have discarded the Scriptural distinction between Law and Gospel and have mingled the two into each other. (Cp. Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik I, 84 ff.) The reason for this is obvious. Both Romanism and modern sectarianism are basically pagan; for both insist upon work-righteousness as a condition of salvation. Now, where work-righteousness is consistently taught, the distinction between Law and Gospel necessarily is eliminated, and each is deprived of its distinctive character. Salvation by works has room only in that type of theology which affirms that sin is not as hideous as Holy Scripture pictures it and that divine grace is not as glorious as the Gospel proclaims it. In other words, the paganistic error of salvation by work-righteousness is possible only if neither the Law nor the Gospel is taught in its truth and purity. Against this pernicious corruption of God's holy Word let every true theologian be warned. Our divine Lord says: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," Matt. 5, 19; and St. Paul writes: "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.With regard to the use of Law and Gospel the following distinctions must be conscientiously observed: -
Knowledge of sin must be taught from the Law; forgiveness of sin must be taught from the Gospel. Rom. 3, 20: "Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified." Rom. 1, 16. 17: "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ...• For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, The just shall live by faith." All who teach forgiveness of sin from the Law or on the basis of work-righteousness are not Christian theologians, but false prophets, Gal. 5, 4. "I would they were even cut off which trouble you," Gal. 5, 12. Since by the Law there is the knowledge of sin, it must be preached to secure sinners, who, filled with carnal pride, refuse to admit their guilt. Rom. 3, 19: "That every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God." On the other hand, the Gospel must be proclaimed to contrite hearts, that is, to penitent sinners, who have been humbled by the Law, make no assertion of having any merit whatsoever of their own, and gladly accept salvation as a free gift. Luke 4, 18: "He hath anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He hath sent Me to heal the broken-hearted." It is needless to say that the right apportionment of Law- and Gospel-preaching must remain a matter of pastoral wisdom. Nevertheless the true minister of Christ is above all a preacher of the Gospel and will therefore not deny his hearers a full and abundant measure of Gospel comfort.
By means of the Law the Christian theologian teaches what good works are~· but by means of the Gospel he produces true joy and zeal to do good works, Matt. 15, 1-6; 22, 35-40; 19, 16-22; Rom. 12, 1; Gal. 5, 24--26; Eph. 6, 5-10; 2 Cor. 8, 8. 9; etc. These diverse functions of the Law and the Gospel have been fittingly expressed by the axiom : Lex praescribit; evangelium inscribit. Luther writes: "A legalistic preacher compels by threats and punishments; a preacher of grace calls forth and moves by showing divine goodness and mercy." St. L., XII, 318.
The Law checks sin only outwardly, while it increases sin inwardly~· but the Gospel, by converting the sinner, destroys sin both inwardly and outwardly. Rom. 7, 5: "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the Law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." V. 6 : "But now are we delivered from the Law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." Rom. 6, 14: "Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the Law, but under grace." This important truth is stated in the axiom: "Lex necat peccatorem, non peccatum; evangelium necat peccatum, non peccatorem" Luther writes: "Hence, whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between Law and Gospel, him place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture." St. L., IX, 802.
The doctrines of Holy Scripture have been fittingly divided into fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines. The purpose of this division is not to discard certain teachings of the Word of God as practically unimportant or unnecessary. Such a procedure would be in direct opposition to Scripture itself. Matt. 28, 20: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Rom. 15, 4: "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." According to these words, God demands of the Christian theologian that he teach the entire Scriptural content, adding nothing and taking away nothing. Nevertheless the distinction of which we speak is fully Scriptural and serves an excellent purpose. It helps the Christian theologian to recognize and distinguish those doctrines of God's Word which "are so necessary to be known that, when they are not known, the foundation of faith is not savingly apprehended or retained." (Hollaz.) In other words, the fundamental doctrines are those "which cannot be denied consistently with faith and salvation, being the very foundation of the Christian faith." (Quenstedt.)
In order that we may understand this, we must remember that not everything that Holy Scripture teaches is the object or foundation of justifying and saving faith. For instance, we are not saved by believing that David was king or that the Pope in Rome is the great Antichrist. However, the Christian theologian does not for that reason deny these facts, for they are taught in God's infallible Word. But these truths, which the theologian accepts as such, are non-fundamental as far as saving faith is concerned. Saving faith is faith in the forgiveness of sins through the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ, or trust in the statement of Scripture that God justifies a sinner without the works of the Law, for Christ's sake. That is the essence of the Christian religion, the foundation on which the entire Christian hope is built. Of this essence and foundation nothing can be removed without destroying the whole Christian religion. Any one who denies even a particle of this fundamental doctrine is outside the pale of the Christian Church. Luther says very correctly : "This doctrine of justification by faith is the head and corner-stone, which alone begets, nourishes, builds up, preserves, and protects the Church, and without this doctrine the Church of God cannot exist one hour." St. L., XIV, 168. Again: "As many in the world as deny it justification by faith are either Jews, or Turks, or papists, or heretics." IX, 29. Because of its paramount importance our Lutheran dogmaticians have called the doctrine of justification by grace through faith in Christ's vicarious atonement "the most fundamental of all doctrines" (articulus omnium fundamentalissimus).
All who deny the Scriptural doctrine of sin cannot have saving faith; for saving faith is implicit trust in God's gracious forgiveness of sins. The true Christian believes that all his sins, both original and actual, are fully pardoned for Jesus' sake. In other words, he believes both the divine Law, which condemns sin, and the divine Gospel, which pardons sin. Both doctrines, the doctrine of sin and that of forgiveness of sins, are fundamental. This truth our Savior affirms when He says that "repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name among all nations," Luke 24, 47. According to Christ's direction the preaching of repentance for sin, or of contrition, must precede the preaching of forgiveness. Our divine Lord further illustrates this great truth by the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. The Pharisee, who did not believe the Scriptural doctrine of sin and therefore did not regard himself as a sinner, could not be justified; in his opinion he had no need of justification and forgiveness. The publican, on the other hand, believed the fundamental doctrine of sin, declared himself guilty and lost, and, trusting in divine grace, received forgiveness through faith. In short, saving faith can exist only in a contrite heart, that is, in a heart which is terrified and sorry because of its sin. Is. 66, 2: "To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit and trembleth at My Word." Is. 57, 15: "I dwell with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit." Ps. 34, 18: "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." Cp. Ps. 51, 16. 17; Luke 4, 18; Matt. 11, 28. Hence we rightly classify the doctrine of sin among the fundamental doctrines of Holy Scripture.
The doctrine of the person of Christ is fundamental because saving faith is trust in the divine-human Redeemer, who died for the sins of the world. For this reason the denial both of Christ's true deity and of His true humanity makes saving faith impossible. Our divine Lord very severely discountenanced the opinions of those who regarded Him as John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremiah, or as one of the prophets and required of His disciples that they believe in Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," Matt. 16, 13-17; cp. also 1 John 1, 1-4. Modern rationalistic theologians, who deny the true deity of Christ and ascribe deity to Him only honoris causa (cp. Ritschl's declaration: "In our judgment we ascribe to Him the value of a God"), are not Christians, but Unitarians and there-fore extra ecclesiam; that is to say, the doctrine of God which modern rationalistic theology inculcates is essentially paganistic, since it rejects the true God of the Bible. It is self-evident that true faith in the divine Christ must include also faith in the Triune God. In other words, the true Christian, who believes in the deity of Christ, believes also that the true God is none other than the unus Deus, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for without faith in the Father no one can believe in the Son, Matt. 16, 17; 11, 27; and again, without the Holy Ghost no one can call Jesus Lord, 1 Cor. 12,3; Rom. 8, 15; John 16, 13-15. The Scriptural doctrine of the Holy Trinity is therefore as fundamental as is that of the deity of Christ. -However, also the doctrine of Christ's true humanity is fundamental; for the denial of the substantial humanity of Christ (cp. the error of the Docetae) implies the denial of His actual suffering and death. Saving faith is trust in the vicarious atonement of the theanthropic Christ (θεάνθρωπος), John 1, 14-17: "The Word was made flesh; . . . and of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. . . . Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Hence we rightly classify among the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, of Christ's true deity, and of His true humanity.
Saving faith is faith in Christ not merely as a Teacher of the divine Law or as an Ensample of Virtue or as the "Ideal Man," as modernistic theology maintains, but faith in Christ as "the Mediator between God and men," who has given His life as a ransom for many, and as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," 1 Tim. 2, 5. 6; Matt. 20, 28; Eph. 1, 7; John 1, 29. All who decline to put their trust in the vicarious satisfaction of Christ (Is. 53, 1-6) are obliged to trust for reconciliation and pardon in their own good works and thus exclude themselves from the grace of God secured by Christ's substitutionary death, Gal. 5, 4. That is true of all who depart from the Scriptural doctrine of justification by grace, through faith, and reject the sola gratia and the sola fide. The Semi-Pelagianist, the Arminian, and the synergist, if they consistently hold to their error, are as much extra ecclesiam as the Unitarian and the Modernist. The warning of the Apology is well in place: "Most of those errors which our adversaries defend, overthrow faith, as their condemnation of the article concerning the remission of sins, in which we say that the remission of sins is received by faith. Likewise it is a manifest and pernicious error when the adversaries teach that men merit the remission of sins by love to God prior to grace. In the place of Christ they set up their works, orders, masses, just as the Jews, the heathen, and the Turks intend to be saved by their works." (Art. IV, 22.) If within those churches which teach the pagan doctrine of work-righteousness individual persons still remain Christians, this is due to the surpassing grace of God, as the Apology rightly reminds us: "Therefore, even though Popes or some theologians and monks in the Church have taught us to seek remission of sins, grace, and righteousness through our own works and to invent new forms of worship, which have obscured the office of Christ and have made out of Christ not a Propitiator and Justifier, but only a Legislator, nevertheless the knowledge of Christ has always remained with some godly persons." (Art. III, 271.)
The Word of God, that is, the external Word of the holy Gospel, which Christ commanded His blessed apostles to preach and teach to all nations (Matt. 28, 19. 20; Mark 16, 15. 16) and which is set forth in Holy Scripture, is both the object and the means of saving faith. It is the object of saving faith because saving faith believes the Gospel, Mark 1, 15; Rom. 1, 1. 2; it is the means of saving faith since saving faith is engendered only through the Gospel, Rom. 10, 17; 1, 16; John 17, 20; Jas. 1, 18. Every "faith" that is not produced by the Word of God is not faith, but a figment of the mind, or fancy. Such faith Luther rightly styles "faith in the air." True, saving faith is always God-made, never manmade, 1 Tim. 6, 3. 1 Cor. 2, 1-5: "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." For this reason the doctrine of the Word of God is likewise a fundamental doctrine. The penalty of the rejection of the Gospel is damnation, Mark 16, 15. 16.
Modern rationalistic theology discards the Scriptural doctrine of the resurrection, denying both Christ's glorious resurrection and the resurrection of all the dead on Judgment Day. In place of the resurrection it teaches the immortality of the soul. Holy Scripture, however, affirms that the denial of the resurrection involves the denial of the entire Gospel of Christ, 1 Cor. 15, 12-19. It unqualifiedly condemns those who deny the resurrection as having made shipwreck of their faith and erred concerning the truth, 1 Tim. 1, 19. 20; 2 Tim. 2, 17. 18. Hymenaeus and Alexander, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection, were delivered by St. Paul "unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." The denial of the resurrection is therefore tantamount to blasphemy of Christ. It is for this reason that we classify the doctrine of the resurrection among the fundamentals of the Christian religion.
When we speak of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion, we of course mean these doctrines as they are presented in Holy Scripture, not the dogmatic formulation of these teachings, or the dogmas of the Church. Dogmas may be faulty; the teachings of Holy Scripture are infallible. Nevertheless it must be borne in mind that, whenever the doctrines of Holy Scripture have been formulated correctly, the rejection of such dogmas, or creeds, is nothing less than the rejection of Holy Scripture itself. Thus
The fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion may be divided into primary and secondary fundamental doctrines. This distinction is not only Scriptural, but also practical and useful, for it helps the Christian theologian to discriminate rightly between the fundamental doctrines themselves. As we have learned, fundamental doctrines are such as constitute the foundation of the Christian faith; yet not all fundamental doctrines constitute this foundation in the same manner. Hollaz rightly observes: "All the fundamental articles of faith must necessarily be known, but the grades of this necessity are different." Doctr. Theol., p. 99. Thus the primary fundamental articles are of such absolute importance that, if they are denied, there is no foundation whatever on which saving faith may rest. All the doctrines enumerated before under the heading "Fundamental Articles of Faith" are to be classified as primary fundamental articles ; for if these are cast aside, Christianity cannot exist.
Secondary fundamental doctrines, on the other hand, while also serving as a foundation of faith, do not do so primarily and absolutely. Examples of secondary fundamental doctrines are those of Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These two Sacraments, instituted by Christ have been given to us as a foundation of faith besides the Gospel; for the same grace and forgiveness proffered and conveyed to us in the Word of God are proffered and conveyed to us also in them. Acts 2, 38 : "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins." Matt. 26, 28 (Luke 22, 19 f.): "This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." On this gracious offer of pardon, sealed by Christ in the Sacraments, the Christian faith rests, and in the same manner and to the same degree as it rests on our Lord's offer of pardon in the Word. For this reason the doctrines of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion are fundamental; they are the foundation of the Christian's faith. Nevertheless a person may be ignorant of these doctrines, or he may even err with regard to them and yet be saved, provided he clings to the promise of forgiveness offered in the Gospel. The reason for this is obvious. The entire forgiveness which Christ has secured for sinners by His death on the cross is offered and conveyed to the believer in the Gospel, so that, if he trusts in the Gospel promise, he possesses by faith all the merits of Christ, together with spiritual life and eternal salvation. This does not mean that the sacramental promise is superfluous. The Christian Church can never dispense with the Sacraments, since they convey the spiritual blessings of the Savior in a particularly close and comforting manner. The Sacraments are the visible Word (Verbum visibile) and the individual application (applicatio in.dividualis) of divine grace. But the Christian believer who trusts in the divine promise of pardon which is offered in the Gospel to all men is already in possession of salvation. The Sacraments offer nothing new; they only seal and confirm the same grace and the same absolution which the Gospel announces, gives, and confers. In this sense the Sacraments are not absolutely necessary; and for this reason we call the doctrines of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion secondary fundamental doctrines. Nor should we reject this distinction; for it points out to us where we must draw the line between Christians and non-Christians. Thus the believing children of God in the Reformed churches err with regard to the essence and purpose of the Sacraments, and this error we must regard as one which is both dangerous and pernicious. Still they trust in the grace which is offered to them in the Gospel, and as long as they do that, we cannot deny that they have the saving faith. In other words, we must still regard them as Christians, though as weak and erring Christians and such as constantly endanger their state of grace by not accepting the whole Word of Christ. What has just been said of the children of God in the Reformed churches pertains also to the believers in other sects and in the Roman Catholic Church. As long as a believer trusts in the grace of Christ offered in the Word, as did the thief on the cross, he is saved, even though he has never received the blessings of the Sacraments. Hollaz is quite right in saying of the secondary fundamental articles as such: "A simple want of acquaintance with them does not prevent salvation, but the pertinacious denial of, and hostility to, them overturns the foundation of faith." Doctr. Theol., p. 99.
That he is commanded by Christ to teach all the doctrines of God's Word and not to ignore or deny a single one. Matt. 28, 20: "Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
That every departure from the Word of God, according to God's express statement, is a scandal (σκάνδαλον), or offense. Rom. 16, 17: "Mark them which cause offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned." No theologian can teach errors without giving offense to others; and this is a most serious matter. Matt. 18, 7 : "Woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" Cp. also Luke 17, 1. Rom. 14, 13: "That no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way." 2 Cor. 6, 3: "Giving no offense in anything that the ministry be not blamed."
That every one who sets aside the clear testimony of God'sWord in a single point rejects the entire Word of God as the only source and standard of faith; for Holy Scripture must be believed and taught not merely in its general application, but all its parts,indeed all its words, must be accepted as divine truth. Luther rightly says: "The Holy Spirit speaking in Holy Scripture cannot be separated or divided, so that He should teach and have us believe one doctrine as true and another as false." St. L., XX,1871. All the teachings of God's Word are so intimately inter woven with one another that, if one is denied, all the rest are likewise affected by such denial; that is to say, "one error produces another," as the history of dogma proves. If there are exceptions to this rule, they must be attributed to the wonderful sustaining grace of God alone. Due to God's grace an erring theologian sometimes,by a strange "fortunate inconsistency," does not personally believe what he officially teaches; or again, he does not, in his own life of faith, draw the deadly inferences which his rationalistic rejection of divine truth suggests. Thus many a synergist who officially affirmed man's cooperation in conversion in his own personal dealings with God as a penitent sinner disavowed this pernicious error and trusted for salvation in God's grace alone. Again,erring theologians who publicly and officially denied the universality of divine grace nevertheless proclaimed and asserted the universal character of God's grace and of Christ's redemption when they preached the Gospel to the common people. This fortunate difference between theory and practise they owed to the unspeakable mercy of God, who earnestly desires the salvation of sinners.
However, also this truth must not be abused to promote in difference in doctrine. While we admit that there is a "fortunate in consistency," we must remember that there is an "unfortunate consistency," by which theologians who offend in one point are led to offend in many points and even in all. In other words, the proclamation of one error consistently leads to the proclamation of others and in the end to the denial of the entire Scriptural truth. Against this fatal consequence of denying God's Word and indulging in error Luther earnestly warns all Christian theologians when he writes: "You must not say, I purpose to err as a Christian. Christian erring occurs only from ignorance." St. L., XIX,1132. Luther admits that there is such an anomaly as "Christian erring"; that is to say, even a true Christian at times errs due to weakness or to ignorance. But this "Christian erring'' becomes an "unchristian erring" as soon as a person deliberately and knowingly yields to error. Such "unchristian erring" must needs overturn the foundation of faith and endanger salvation. Let theChristian theologian, then, be warned. Indifferentism with respect to the doctrines of Holy Scripture and spiritual unionism resulting therefrom are diametrically opposed to God's Word, which declares:"A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself," Titus 3, 10. 11. Holy Scripture never justifies the teaching of error, but always and most vehemently condemns it as 'an offense, σκάνδαλον.
That the whole Church, in order to preserve unadulterated the purity of doctrine, must continually guard against every error by which Satan would cause divisions and offenses. To this end it must rebuke even the slightest error and departure from the truth that is in Christ Jesus. Gal. 5, 9: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." It is the ''little leaven" of false doctrine with which the whole corruption of the entire Christian theology usually begins. Modernism, with its crass rejection of all the Scriptural truths that are necessary to salvation, is but the result of the indifferentism of such theologians and churches as allowed the "little leaven" a place in their system of dogmas. Let errorists deny the doctrine of verbal inspiration, and the whole doctrine of inspiration will fall. Let the sola gratia be removed from the corpus doctrinae, and the rejection of Christ's vicarious atonement will follow. The Christian theologian cannot err in "little things" without sooner or later erring also in the "great things" of salvation. That is the "unfortunate consistency" of tolerating error. How deadly it is all earnest Christians know who have studied the history of the Christian Church in the light of Holy Scripture.
Non-fundamental doctrines of Holy Scripture are such as do not constitute the foundation of faith, inasmuch as they do not offer and convey to sinners forgiveness of sins and thus make them children of God through faith in Christ. They do not form the foundation of saving faith, but rather strengthen the faith which already exists. Hollaz describes non-fundamental doctrines as "parts of the Christian doctrine which one may be ignorant of or omit and yet be saved" Doctr. Theol., p. 99.. Such doctrines are, for example, those of the angels, of Antichrist, etc. As we see, these doctrines do not create saving faith in Christ, but they are given for the comfort or warning of those who already believe in Christ. This does not mean that the non-fundamental doctrines are useless; in many respects their importance is indeed very great, and so they may not be dispensed with. Thus the doctrine concerning the holy angels glorifies divine grace and strengthens our faith in God's merciful providence. Both quantitatively and qualitatively this doctrine constitutes a weighty part of Christian theology. This fact the Christian theologian must never overlook.
Again, the doctrine concerning Antichrist instructs with regard to, and warns us against, the greatest fraud ever perpetrated within Christendom, and evangelical theology would suffer a most serious loss if this doctrine were eliminated. Accordingly also the nonfundamental doctrines are necessary and must be inculcated with becoming earnestness and emphasis. 2 Tim. 3, 16: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Nevertheless the non-fundamental doctrines are not properly the object of saving faith; for faith relies on the gracious Gospel-promise of pardon through faith in the redemption of Jesus Christ; in this sense alone they are non-fundamental. Whoever declares them to be non-fundamental in the sense that they can be dispensed with denies both the divine authority and the perfection of Holy Scripture and thus denies a fundamental doctrine. Baier's warning with regard to this matter should be heeded here. He writes: "At the same time while we admit that there are non-fundamental doctrines we are to be careful in regard to this point lest by embracing or professing error we rashly sin against divine revelation and God Himself; especially, lest through the persuasion of others something be maintained, contrary to conscience, through which the foundation and the truth of one or more of the fundamental articles of the faith are overturned. For thus, as by a mortal sin, faith and the Holy Spirit may be, and are, entirely driven away." Doctr. Theol., p. 97. This warning applies also to the historical, archeological, and scientific facts and statements contained in Holy Scripture. While these are not fundamental, we wickedly reject the divine authority of Holy Scripture if we presume to deny them to be absolutely true; for an erring Scripture is not authoritative. Indeed, an errant Bible cannot be believed at all; for if it is false in non-fundamental points, how can it be true in its fundamental teachings? If we cannot rely on it when it teaches us earthly things, how much less can we do so when it speaks of heavenly things. Hence, while the Christian theologian acknowledges non-fundamental doctrines in Holy Scripture, he believes and declares the entire Holy Scripture, in all its parts and in all its statements, to be the divine truth which must be proclaimed to men. The distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines is made by him merely to distinguish clearly between those teachings of God which are the foundation of justifying faith and those which are not.
Open questions must not be defined as points of doctrine "on which men cannot agree" or "which the Church has left undecided in its Confessions," but as questions which Holy Scripture itself bas left open, or unanswered, or bas not answered clearly. This definition of open questions is very important; for not human, but only Scriptural authority determines what must be taught in the Christian Church, namely, the entire content of Holy Scripture, Matt. 28, 20; not a definite doctrinal platform which certain theologians or churches have drawn up. In other words, Holy Scripture alone is the spiritual teacher of men, not the Church or the theologian in the Church. The spirit of indifferentism and unionism bas always set up false standards regarding the issue of open questions. Guided by a vicious principle of religious toleration, theologians again and again have erred on this point by exalting their limited human reason above the inspired Word of God and "opening" or "closing'' questions at their own will. Over against this unscriptural practise it must be maintained that open questions owe their existence alone to the silence of Scripture and not to any fixation of doctrine by the Church or to any policy of expediency advocated by parties in controversy. Since the doctrine of Holy Scripture is God's Word, men have no right whatever to decide what to teach and what not to teach or to determine which should be closed and which should be open questions. That is a matter outside their jurisdiction.
As we study Holy Scripture, we find that, in agreement with its scope and purpose, it does not answer every question which men may desire to have answered. For instance, it does not explain how sin originated or could originate since all creatures were originally created "very good." Nor does Holy Scripture answer the question whether the soul of a child comes into being either by creation or traduction (creationism; traducianism). Questions on which the Word of God is silent we call theological problems, or open questions. To these questions we may add also the cruz theologorum, which has always puzzled the minds of inquisitive theologians : Why are some converted and others not, though by nature all men are in the same guilt (eadem culpa) and are saved by grace alone (sola gratia)! (Cur alii, alii non! Our non omnes! Cur alii prae aliis!) Since God's Word does not answer these questions, the theologian should not endeavor to do so. All attempts to do so are both anti-Scriptural, because the theologian is to speak only as the oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4, 11, and unscientific, since he who takes it upon himself to answer such questions presumes to know what he cannot know. Divine truth is apprehended only through faith, or by simply believing what Holy Scripture teaches. John 8, 31. 32. Hence, whatever doctrine is drawn from any other source than Christ's Word is not theology, but mere speculation or downright ignorance, 1 Tim. 6, 4.
The proper attitude of the Christian theologian toward open questions, or theological problems, is therefore that of confessing that he is incapable of solving them since the source of his faith, Holy Scripture, furnishes him no data. Reusch very pertinently says: "Inutilis est eorum cognitio, et vanae sunt de eisdem disputationes." (Annotationes in Baieri Comp., 1757, p. 52.) However, such disputations are not only useless, but directly dangerous. Of this Luther reminds us when he says that the Gospel is hindered mainly by two things, namely, first, if sinners are taught to trust in their good works, and secondly, if useless questions are propounded the answering of which causes the chief parts of the Christian doctrine to be neglected. St. L., IX, 863 ff. Open questions are certainly not "open" in the sense that the Christian theologian may allow his imagination to run wild on matters which God has wisely refused to reveal. If he indulges in speculations, these must always be kept within the bounds of the analogy of faith, or the clear revelation of God's Word. But it is safer and better for a theologian not to speculate at all, since his own views may easily lodge in his theological system and be taught as a part of divinely revealed truth. Let the Christian theologian learn to say nescio wherever Holy Scripture does not speak with clearness and definiteness, remembering that both in revealing truths and in withholding facts which we should like to know God had in mind our salvation, 2 Tim. 3, 15-17.
In this connection we may discuss also the important question, "What are articles of faith?" Articles of faith, as our dogmaticians have always affirmed, have their origin solely in Holy Scripture. That means that the Christian Church accepts and believes only such doctrines as are unmistakably taught in Holy Scripture. Hollaz describes an article of faith as "a part of the doctrine revealed in the written Word of God concerning God and divine things and proposed to the sinner to be believed for his salvation." However, since it is true that some articles of faith contain truths which man's natural knowledge of God and the contemplation of God's works in nature disclose to him, for example, those concerning the existence of God, the articles of faith have been divided into mixed articles, that is, such as are manifest also from the light of nature, and pure articles, or such as are known only from the study of Holy Scripture. (Baier.) But also the former, the mixed articles, are articles of faith only inasmuch as they are directly taught in God's Word. The true Christian theologian recognizes no source of divine truth other than the Bible.