The Christian Church is much older than Holy Scripture, that is, it existed long before God gave His written Word to men; for until the time of Moses God called and preserved His Church by oral teaching (viva voce). The Christian Church began immediately after the Fall, when God proclaimed to fallen mankind salvation through faith in the Seed of the Woman, who was to destroy the works of the devil; and Adam and Eve penitently believed the Protevangelium (Gen. 3, 15). This method of orally promulgating His Word was retained by God until the time when He called Israel out of Egypt and made it His chosen people, or His Church, Gen. 4, 26; 13, 4; 20, 4; Acts 10, 43; Ex. 17, 14; 24, 4. 7 ; etc.
However, after God had commanded His prophets to put His Word in writing, His Church was rigidly bound to the written Word, and it was not permitted either to add to the Scriptures or to take anything away from them, Deut. 4, 2; 12, 32; Josh. 1, 7; . 23, 6. For the Church of the Old Testament the prophetic Scriptures constituted a fixed canon, to which only God Himself could make additions, John 5, 39; Luke 16, 29. In the time of the New Testament, God added to the existing and acknowledged Scriptures of the prophets the holy writings of the apostles, to form, together with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, the inerrant foundation upon which His Church is built, Eph. 2, 20; 1 Pet. 1, 10-12.
With the revelations of Christ and His holy apostles the Scriptural canon is now complete, and the Christian Church is to look for no more revelations from God, John 17, 20; Eph. 2, 20; He b. 1, 1-3. Luther writes very aptly: "That we may do: If we, too, are holy and have the Holy Spirit, we may boast of being catechumens and pupils of the prophets, inasmuch as we repeat and preach what we have heard and learned from the prophets and apostles and are sure that the prophets have taught it. In the Old Testament those are called 'the children of the prophets' who did not teach anything of their own or anything new, as did the prophets, but taught what they had received from the prophets." (St. L., III, 1890.)
If the question is asked where the New Testament Church may unerringly find the word of the apostles, they themselves point us to their holy writings and tell us that what they proclaimed orally is the same as that which they recorded in their sacred Scriptures, 1 John 1, 3. 4; 2 Thess. 2, 15. Though the apostles did not put into writing everything that they taught orally, nevertheless everything that is required for salvation is found in abundance in their writings, since they record with great diligence God's counsel of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, John 21,25; Phil. 3, 1. In addition, the holy apostles insisted upon their written word as the only source and norm of faith against all errorists of their time, demanding that all who regarded themselves as prophets must follow the Lord's commands as these are laid down in their writings, 1 Cor. 14, 37. 38; 2 Thess. 2, 2. St. Paul especially put his own signature to his epistles in order that these might be distinguished from spurious apostolic epistles, 2 Thess. 3, 17. Both the prophets and the apostles thus attest that Holy Scripture, or the written Word of God, is the only source and norm of faith and life, or the true principium cognoscendi (Schriftprinzip).
This fundamental truth has been denied in various ways. The principle of Scripture, or the fact that Holy Scripture is the only source and norm of faith, has been abrogated by the substitution of something else for God's Word.
a. Human reason has been substituted for Scripture. By human reason we mean everything that man knows of God and divine things outside of Holy Scripture, or simply man's natural knowledge of God. This natural knowledge of God, however, cannot be the source of man's faith, since it is limited to the Law and its demands, Rom. 1, 20. 21. 32; 2, 15, and does not include the precious Gospel of Christ, or the message of reconciliation through the vicarious satisfaction of the incarnate Son of God, by which alone sinners can be saved, 1 Cor. 2, 6 ff.; Rom. 1, 16. Any one who makes human reason the norm of faith commits the logical fallacy of μετάβασις εἰς γένος and excludes himself from the Christian Church, since he substitutes for divine truth his own fallible wisdom, which rejects God's free salvation offered in the Gospel as foolishness, 1 Cor. 1, 21-25. The Christian Church therefore repudiates all forms of rationalism, Unitarianism, and Modernism, which regard human reason, or human science, as the source of faith, and condemns its proponents as being outside the pale of the Church (extra ecclesiam).
By human reason, however, we denote also the means by which man perceives and thinks. This is the so-called ministerial use of reason (usus rationis ministerialis, organicus) and is quite distinct from its magisterial use (usus ration is magisterialis). Reason in this sense has a legitimate and necessary place in theology, since the Holy Spirit implants and preserves saving faith through the Word of God which is received into the human mind, Rom. 10, 14.17; John 5,39; Matt. 24,15; Luke 2,19. Totheministerial use of reason belongs also the study of the languages in which Holy Scripture was originally written, and in particular that of logic and grammar, because the Holy Spirit, in giving to man God's Word, was pleased to accommodate Himself to the laws of human thought and speech. Luther makes the remark that God is incarnate in Holy Scripture (Scriptura Sacra est Deus incarnatus). In the same sense our Lutheran dogmaticians say that "theology must be grammatical" (theologia debet esse grammatica), which means that, if the theologian desires to understand Scripture, he must observe the fixed laws by which human speech and expression is governed. Luther urged this truth so vigorously as to maintain that any one who errs in grammar cannot but err also in his theology.
By distinguishing between the ministerial and the magisterial use of reason, our Lutheran dogmaticians also decided the question whether sacred theology and human reason, or Christian truth and human philosophy, really contradict each other. Their contention was that, since truth is always the same, such a contradiction could occur only if perverted reason presumed to be an arbiter in matters lying beyond its specific domain. With regard to the articles of faith they averred that these are not contrary to reason, but only above reason and that, if seemingly they did contradict reason, they were contrary only to corrupt reason or to the perversion of reason in the interest of falsehood and enmity against God.
However, the Christian theologian must expect the warfare between theology and perverted reason, or science falsely so called, to continue because ever since the Fall man by nature has been at enmity with God, Rom. 8, 7, and regards the very essence of the Christian religion, or the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as foolishness, 1 Cor. 2, 14. In consequence of his innate hatred against God and divine things, which always reveals itself in proud and arrogant rejection of His Word, natural man will never cease to oppose divine truth on the ground of his own supposed knowledge, so that unbelieving philosophers and atheistic scientists will always charge Scripture with teaching falsehood (atheistic evolution). Gerhard is quite right when he says (II, 371): 'CW'e must distinguish between reason before and after the Fall. The former, as such, was never opposed to divine revelation; the latter has frequently been thus opposed through the influence of corruption."
b. The enlightened reason, which is also known as "Christian consciousness," "Christian experience," "Christian conviction," "Christian assurance," etc., has been substituted for the Word of God. It is true, every believer in Christ has an enlightened mind, but as far as he is a Christian, he never insists upon his enlightened reason as a source or norm of faith, since he owes his illumination entirely to the living power of the Word of God, Rom. 1, 16; and he knows that his reason will at once sink back into spiritual ignorance as soon as he departs from Christ's enlightening Gospel. Hence all who set up the enlightened mind of the Christian as a principium cognoscendi apart from Scripture deceive themselves, since their very desire to enthrone their enlightened reason as a judge of faith proceeds from their unenlightened reason, or their proud carnal mind, 1 Tim. 6, 3-5. Reason, inasmuch as it is illuminated by the Holy Ghost through the Word, never presumes to judge Scripture, but faithfully adheres to God's Word in all things and glories in its sacred teachings, John 8, 31. 32; 2 Cor. 10, 4. 5; 1 Cor. 1, 18. 24. Luther writes very correctly: "The Holy Spirit never operates without or before the Word, but He comes with and through the Word and never goes beyond the Word." (St. L., XI, 1073.)
c. The general scope of Scripture (udas Schriftganze,"' "the whole of Scripture"). The advocates of this theory claim that the Christian articles of faith must not be drawn from Scripturepassages treating of the individual doctrines (sedes doctrinae, dicta probantia), but from the general scope or tenor of the Bible, which Schleiermacher, who first propounded this false view, called udas Bchriftganze," or the "whole of Scripture." Modern rationalizing theologians have readily assented to Schleiermacher's proposition; but we must reject it as utterly unadoptable, since the whole of a thing necessarily involves all its component parts, and as absolutely unscriptural, since Christ and His apostles invariably refuted error by referring to distinct Scripture-passages, Matt. 4, 4. 7. 10; Rom. 1, 17; 1 Cor. 10, 7-10; Gal. 4, 22 f. Schleiermacher's contention that "it is a most precarious procedure to quote Scripturepassages in a dogmatic treatise and, besides, in itself quite inad equate" (Glaubenslehre, I, § 30) was only a pretext to justify his unscriptural method of deriving the theological truths from his reason, or the "pious self-consciousness." Scripture declares of every theologian who repudiates the sacred doctrines set forth in God's Word: "If any man consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is proud, knowing nothing,. but doting about questions and strifes of words," 1 Tim. 6, 3. 4.
d. The Church, in particular the decisions of church councils, synods, Popes, etc., is substituted for Scripture by many. According to Holy Scripture, however, the Christian Church has no authority whatever to teach any doctrine besides and beyond the Word of its divine Master Jesus Christ, laid down in the writings of His prophets and apostles, Matt. 23, 8. 10 ; 28, 20; John 17, 20; Eph. 2, 20; 1 Pet. 1, 10-12. Hence the Church cannot be regarded as a judge of faith, but according to the will of its Lord it is to function till the end of time merely as a herald, or messenger, of God's Word, John 8, 31. 32. Whenever a Church puts forth doctrines of its own fabrication, it disowns the principle of Scripture and falls under the condemnation of Christ: "In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," Matt. 15, 9. The "consensus of the Church" (consens·us ecclesiae) is not what Christian teachers have opined on this or that point of doctrine, but what they have declared as divine truth on the basis of Scripture, that is to say, in agreement with the witness of the holy prophets and apostles. According to Holy Scripture all those who reject the teachings of God's Word are antichrists, 1 John 2, 22, among whom the most perverse is the great Antichrist, "who opposeth and exalteth himself aboYe all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," 2 Thess. 2, 3. 4. The declaration of papal infallibility (1870) must be regarded as intolerable blasphemy and antichristian rebellion against God. In vain do papistic theologians quote Matt. 16, 18 as a proof that the Church, in particular the Pope, cannot err; for Christ promises to His Church His sustaining presence only under the condition that it faithfully teaches "unto the end of the world" "all things whatsoever I have commanded you," Matt. 28, 20. As long as the Church adheres to the Word of Christ, it cannot err; but as soon as it departs from the divine Word, it cannot but err, since in that case it has no other source to draw from than proud, perverted reason.
With respect to the witness of the Christian Church two extremes must be avoided; on the one hand, it must not be underestimated or rejected as worthless; on the other hand, it must not be overestimated, as if the testimony of the Church were in itself a principium cognoscendi. The Formula of Concord states the matter very correctly: "We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with all teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone. . . . Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, in what manner after the time of the apostles and at what places this (pure) doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved." (Epitome, Triglot, p. 777. Cf. the distinction between norma normans, sc., Scripture, and the norma normata, sc., the Confessions of the Church.) With regard to the so-called "consensus of the fathers" (consensus patrurn, i. e., the agreement of the Church Fathers) Quenstedt shows that this does not exist; for many writings of the teachers of the ancient Church have been lost, and "the consensus of a few fathers cannot be accepted as the consensus of the whole Church." (Cf. the definition of the consensus patrum by Vincentius of Lerinum: "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est," which is practically worthless.)
e. Private revelations (revelationes immediatae, revelationes novae). Private revelations are supposedly new doctrines which God gives to individuals to explain, correct, and supplement Holy Scripture. Fanatics, asserting that they had received private revelations, arose even in the time of the apostles, 1 Cor. 14, 37; 2 These. 2, 2; and in their wake there followed in the second and fourth centuries the Moutanists and Donatists. At the time of Luther's Reformation, the "heavenly prophets," the Anabaptists and Schwenkfeldians, who rejected the "external Word" and in its place· stressed the "inner word," stigmatizing obedience to Scripture as "letter service" (Buchstabendienst); while in modern times the· Christian Church must cope with the enthusiasm of such religious organizations as the Quakers, Swedenborgians, Irvingites, and others. In addition to these visionaries it must oppose also those who separate the operation of the Holy Ghost from the Word of Scripture and rely on private revelations as the norm of their· faith, e. g.: -
a. The Romanists, who ascribe to their Popes the charisma of infallible teaching outside and beyond Scripture. With regard to the Papacy, Luther writes in the Smalcald Articles: "The Papacy also is nothing but sheer enthusiasm, by which the Pope boasts that all rights exist in the shrine of his heart, and whatever he decides and commands with in his Church is spirit and right, even though it is above and contrary to Scripture and the spoken Word." (Part III, Art. VIII, 4.)
b. The Calvinists, who teach that the saving work of the Holy Spirit occurs immediately, i.e., outside and apart from the Word. (Hodge: "Efficacious grace acts immediately.")
c. All modern rationalistic theologians, who deny that Holy Scripture is the inerrant Word of God and therefore propose to draw the Christian doctrine from their "pious self-consciousness," their "Christian experience," and the like, while they stigmatize loyalty to Scripture as "letter theology," "intellectualism," "Biblicism," etc. The result of enthusiasm in religion is always the same, no matter whether it is practised by papists, Calvinists, or modern rationalists, as Luther well points out in the Smalcald Articles, in which he writes: "Enthusiasm adheres in Adam and his children from the beginning (from the first fall) to the end of the world, (its poison) having been implanted and infused into them by the old dragon, and is the origin, power (life), and strength of all heresy, especially of that of the Papacy and Mahomet." (Part III, Art. VIII, 9.) Luther says with regard to the pious pretenses of the enthusiasts : "They say these things only in order that they may lead us away from the Bible and make themselves masters over us, so that we should believe their dream sermons." (St. L., V, 334 f.)
The question of whether God deigns to reveal new doctrines outside, and apart from, the Bible is definitely decided in His Word, which binds all Christian believers to Holy Scripture as the sole source and norm of faith, John 17, 20; Eph. 2, 20. In Christ Jesus, the Light and Savior of the world, all divine revelations culminate, the prophets in the Old Testament pointing forward to His coming and the apostles witnessing to His incarnation, Passion, resurrection, ascension, and session at the right hand of God. Since Christ's prophetic and sacerdotal ministry has been accomplished (John 1, 18), men require no further revelations for their salvation because every doctrine needed for both faith and life of the Christian is amply supplied in the writings of the prophets and apostles, Rom. 16, 17; 1 Tim. 6, 3ff.; Luke 16, 29-31. Lutheran dogmaticians have aptly remarked with reference to the "new revelations" of the enthusiasts: "Either they contain what Scripture already teaches, and in that case they are superfluous; or they propound teachings contrary to the Bible, and in that case they are injurious and must be rejected."
f. Historical investigation. Modernists, rejecting the historical character of the New Testament, assert that they must go beyond Scripture to ascertain who the ''historical Christ" really was and what He actually taught. To accomplish this purpose, they subject the records of the evangelists to a critical scrutiny in the light of comparative religion. The ''historical Christ" whom they obtain by this procedure is divested of all supernatural properties and His doctrine of all supernatural elements. They make of Him a mere human teacher, whose doctrines are little more than an ethical code. In opposition to this preposterous method the true followers of Christ declare that the "historical revelation of the way of salvation is found only in the Bible" and that, as Luther correctly asserts, "we know nothing of Christ apart from and without His Word and much less of His teaching; for any 'Christ' who proposes an opinion outside the Word of Christ is the abominable devil, who applies to himself the holy name of Christ in order that he may thus sell to us his infernal venom." (St. L., XVII, 2015.) The truth of this statement is proved by the actual results of the modern historico-critical school of theology; for while it violently rejects all the sacred truths set forth in the Bible, it is unable to construct a satisfactory system of doctrines which may comfort the sinner in his spiritual distress. Its influences have proved only destructive, never edifying or helpful.
The reason for this is clear. After all, there can be only two sources of doctrine: Scripture and human reason. Any one who repudiates Holy Scripture as the true principium cognoscendi is obliged to draw his doctrine from his perverted mind or carnal heart, which at best retains only an imperfect knowledge of the divine Law originally inscribed in the human consciousness, so that natural man, knowing nothing at all of the true God and His glorious salvation through faith in Christ, is compelled to hold~he opinio legis, or salvation by good works, to be the supreme religious precept. Ultimately every rejection of God's Word terminates in agnosticism or atheism. He who is without the divine Word 1s eo ipso also without God and without hope, Eph. 2, 12.