Lutheran Orthodoxy
From LutheranWiki
[edit] The Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy (ca. 1580 - ca. 1750)
[edit] Scripture
[edit] Scripture as God's Word
For the Lutheran Orthodoxy, the Scriptures are God’s Word. They do not simply contain it (and many words of men); they are identical with it – to this very day. Following the Aristotelian terminology, they distinguish between the materia and the forma of Scripture. The materia are Scripture’s letters; the forma are the thoughts and concepts expressed thereby. (Cf. Augustine’s distinction between signs (signa) and things expressed by these signs (res).) Both materia and forma are considered inspired and hence inerrant. Given agreement in forma, creeds, sermons, etc. are also called God’s Word. In other words, Lutherans follow an ancient Christian tradition and consider it quite possible to restate the meaning, subject matter, or teaching/doctrine of Scripture in our own, human words. This makes it possible to have statements of faith, confessions, etc. that are second to Scripture as normed norms (normae normatae), but equal to Scripture as normed norms for teaching and life.
[edit] Scripture One with the Hypostatic Word
Insofar as the forma is considered, the Scriptures are also one with the hypostatic Word of God, Jesus Christ. To be sure, they must be distinguished, but they must not be separated. The Scriptures are never simply “dead letters” that first, in a contingent, secondary act of inspiration, needed to be brought alive. Where the Scriptures are, there is also Christ himself, presently speaking and powerfully acting. In fact, the entire Scriptures are called “word of Christ.” But he is not only the author of Scripture; he is also its center.
[edit] The Necessity of Scripture
Why is Scripture necessary? Simple answer: because God has given it to mankind. He never does things that are not necessary. Furthermore: Scripture says how useful it is for salvation by faith (2 Tim. 3:16). Longer answer: setting forth God’s revelation in writing has certain advantages, given the sinful ignorance and forgetfulness of humanity. This makes the record durable, certain, permanent, and easy to translate (evangelism!).
[edit] The Inspiration of Scripture
Without the inspiration of Scripture there is no sola Scriptura because the identity of Word of God and Scripture would be a mere pious wish, not an actual reality. For the Orthodox writers, inspiration is more than a general assistance granted by God to certain individuals. Inspiration covers the Bible’s entire content (plenary inspiration) well as the very words (verbal inspiration), forma and materia, but it also covers the impulse to produce inspired Scripture (mandatum scribendi). This position set the orthodox Lutherans of the 16th century already apart from Roman Catholic theologians as well as later Lutherans who allowed for errors in “minor” matters and did not consider facts known by the human writer to be part of inspiration (difference between revelation and inspiration).
[edit] Accommodation
While God is thus the primary author of Scripture, and the prophets, evangelists, and apostles only such in a secondary sense, inspiration does not mean that they wrote without understanding or against their will or out of their personal style. The Holy Spirit grants words, understanding, and will to the inspired writers, but he doesn’t mold their style into a uniform “bible style” (accommodation, condescension of the Spirit). Verbal inspiration as well as accommodation are taught and drawn from Scriptural evidence, as paradoxical as that might seem to us.
[edit] The Divine Attributes of Scripture
Because Scripture is the inspired Word of God, it has certain divine attributes, such as power, authority, clarity, inerrancy, sufficiency. The orthodox theologians did not have an inductive proof of inspiration, like, e.g., because this verse strikes me as powerful it must be from God. This would open, and has opened (liberal theology, K. Barth), the door to far-reaching subjectivism.
[edit] Authority
Scripture’s authority means that Scripture, because it is God’s word, demands submission and obedience to all its statements. Early rationalists (Socinians) and Jesuit theologians tried to drive a wedge in here. Socinians based their belief in Scripture’s authority merely on empirical data (age of manuscripts, trustworthiness of biblical writers, etc.) which opens the door to skepticism. The Jesuits based the authority of Scripture on the authority of the church (church authenticates Scriptures as such). As one Lutheran put it, we believe in Scripture per ecclesiam (through the church, as guardian of, and witness to, Scripture) not propter ecclesiam (because of the church).
[edit] Self-Authentication
Lutherans do recognize various criteria or reasons for the authority of Scripture, some of which are external, leading only to a mere human, external conviction; some of which are internal. Later Lutherans identify these internal criteria (its power, depth, and majesty, among others) with the self-authenticating power of God’s word. Earlier theologians had spoken here of the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit” (testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum) by which he moves our hearts to believe the Scriptures and promises of God through the word itself.
[edit] The Canon
The question of the canon seemed to play into the hands of the Roman position (the authenticating church). However, while Lutherans viewed inspiration as the main criterion for canonicity, it was by no means the only standard they applied. Others where, e.g., the witness of the early church; its original language; its content. The main difference to modern critics is, however, that the older canon-critics (Luther included) did not start picking individual writings apart: once a book was recognized as canonical, it was such as a whole.
[edit] The Original Texts of the OT and NT
A related question is that of the authenticity of the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts of Holy Scripture. Here the Lutherans defended, against Catholic criticism, the view that the extant texts of Scripture contain the basically reliable text of God’s word (variants are usually minor matters and don’t affect the forma, the doctrine of Scripture). Here the reverence of the copyists and the providence of God provided us today with reliable texts in Hebrew and Greek which are “more” normative than translations (which can agree only in forma, not in materia with God’s original words). An aside to this discussion was the question as to whether or not the Hebrew vowel points were inspired. Beginning in the Middle Ages, it was held that the vowel signs (not the sounds) were a later addition to the text; later theologians, however, reacting to Catholic criticism favoring the Vulgate, held the inspiration of the vowel points.
[edit] Sufficiency
Given to bring sinners to faith in Christ, Scripture (not each book) is sufficient to accomplish this purpose. Unwritten tradition etc. is not needed to complement it. However, it is also true that not only “the gospel” narrowly understood is to be considered “inspired.”
[edit] Perspicuity
Every doctrine that is needed for faith and life is clearly taught in Scripture. This does not mean that every verse or word of Scripture is clear, let alone easy to understand. However, the clarity or perspicuity of Scripture is not simply an inert quality it itself has; the clarity of Scripture is also its ability to give clarity to the mind of the reader / hearer. It is active; it makes itself clear; it illumines the minds and hearts. Objective clarity leads to personal / subjective clarity.
[edit] Veracity
Because Scripture is inspired by God’s Spirit, it is absolutely true. It is inerrant, without mistakes, in all its parts. In other words, it not only reaches its soteriological goal infallibly (that is the efficacy of Scripture), but it conveys propositional truth about doctrine and the world. Scripture’s assertions agree with the reality of God and creation. Unlike earlier times, the time of the orthodox theologians saw a growing laxness in regard to the truthfulness of Scripture in Christendom (among Catholics, Socinians, Arminians). This leads the Lutherans to elaborate on this article more than it had been done in earlier centuries. One major tenet is that the results of scientific or historical research cannot be used as norms for measuring Scripture’s truthfulness. For the remaining contradictions and difficulties within Scripture the old Lutherans offered a number of rules, all based on the firm biblical belief in the truthfulness of God’s Word.
[edit] Efficacy
Because Scripture is inspired by God’s Spirit it is, finally, also efficacious: it accomplishes the purposes for which it is sent out in law and gospel. Scripture is, of course only one mode in which the forma, the divine content of God’s Word, is conveyed. Wherever the divine forma was present, there was God’s power in and with the word. It has the power, not merely the potential, to save. It works regeneration of the heart and faith. In other words, the Holy Spirit does not operate independently of the word; he works in and through the very Word of God. In the 1620s the Rathmann controversy broke out: German theologian H. Rathmann taught, with similarities to Augustine, that the letter of Scripture is a dead letter that serves only as a sign to grace, not as a vehicle for grace itself. In its mature form, the doctrine of the efficacy and power of God’s Word takes a Trinitarian form: God’s Word is efficacious because the Father is its author; the Son its content; and the Spirit is and remains united with that Word so that it is his living instrument. Because of the Spirit’s perpetual union with God’s Word, God’s Word is efficacious even extra usum. The efficacy of the Scriptures the Lutherans affirmed against certain Calvinists who believed in a kind of actual-punctual inspiration (the Scriptures become God’s active word now and them, modern: K. Barth) and against the enthusiasts and their belief in a direct operation of the Spirit apart from God’s Word.
[edit] Interpretation of Scripture
[edit] Written in Every-Day Language
A firm belief in, and clearly articulated doctrine of, the inspiration of Scripture by no means leads the Lutherans to embrace a wooden, literalistic mode of interpretation. They clearly recognize and discuss stylistic difference and difference in genre as well as figures of speech etc. The holy writers employed their every-day language; this is why the orthodox theologians availed themselves of every linguistic help of their day (rudimentary as that may seem to us today). Here Augustine’s heritage can be seen.
[edit] The Aid of the Holy Spirit
The aid of the Holy Spirit was seen as necessary because even the Christian exegete remains a sinner with a darkened heart. At the same time, it was affirmed that the Spirit provided this help and illumination only in and through Scripture itself, not in some direct way. What is more, understanding the Scriptures was not some merely intellectual enterprise; it means also to accept them and their teachings as what they are, God’s authoritative word.
[edit] Establishing Literal Meaning
The first aim of the interpreter was to establish the literal meaning / sense of the text (sensus literalis). This is the meaning the Holy Spirit intended to convey at any given passage. This meaning could be either literal in the proper sense or literal in the figurative sense. In other words, it was important to determine whether the Holy Spirit employed a figure of speech or not; unless convinced by Scripture to do otherwise, the proper literal sense is, as a rule, taken as the literal meaning of the text. The literal meaning of the text cannot change over time; in other words, it can be determined once for all (important for the “meaning” of the OT today). This literal meaning was, moreover, one, not, as Origen and those who followed him believed, threefold or fourfold. This would have invalidated any claim to certainty in dealing with the Scriptures in order to establish articles of faith. The allegorical meaning of OT events given in the NT is, for the Lutheran exegetes of the 17th century a case of application, not interpretation, for the sake of illustration and clarification. As for the argumentative force of figurative speech, the Orthodox did not dismiss it out of hand, but cautiously allowed for parables etc. to prove doctrine, provided its scope and intention were clear.
[edit] Type and Allegory
Here the distinction between type and allegory is important: According to the Lutherans, an allegory, as used in Scripture, is simply an illustrative device (it does give a different meaning to a text). However, a type is the sensus mysticus of a certain historical event, institution, or person: the text says (and indeed, from the beginning intended to say) more than what meets the historical eye (e.g., the fiery serpents in Numbers 21). Lest arbitrary typologizing would take place, the orthodox exegetes limit the use of types to those places where Scripture has employed them – we lack the Spirit to “discover” new types beyond the ones indicated by Christ and his apostles. However, in a wider sense, the entire OT can be regarded as typologically foreshadowing the NT and Christ. Nonetheless, the Lutherans did not find a type behind every tree in the OT.
[edit] Scripture Interprets Scripture
As already alluded to many times before, because Scripture alone was the product of the one divine author, it alone was able to interpret itself. In other words, the Holy Spirit must be allowed to speak for himself. The “spirit” need not be brought to dead letters from the outside, e.g., the church or the intelligence of the exegete. That also means that the rules for interpreting Scripture are to be found in the Bible itself.
[edit] One Theology
Scripture is one in Christ, that is, it is given to make men wise unto salvation through faith in Christ. The doctrinal unity of Scripture means that all its teachings are, in one way or another, related to the one doctrina evangelii. In other words, because of the oneness of its author, there is not a variety of theologies in the Scriptures. There is only one theology which all the different human writers share because they were all inspired by the same Spirit of the one true God. Quoting from different parts of Scripture is therefore perfectly justified in the framework of orthodox theology. Scripture is, after all, not man’s approximations about God, but God’s Word to man.
[edit] OT and NT
The OT is a Christian book. It does not have a different theology than the NT other than that it points forward to the coming Messiah (types and figures) whereas the NT looks back on the Messiah that has come. Already the orthodox had to deal again with the Socinians here who maintained that the OT prophecies had to “make historical sense” already for the first hearers, not first in relation to Christ. For the Lutherans, however, the NT settled the OT interpretation once for all. How much emphasis did the NT really give to the historical context of OT prophecies and other texts?
[edit] Consequence
To establish doctrine / an article of faith, Lutherans accepted the NT principle that it can be based on a legitimate consequence drawn from Scripture, not just on Scripture itself. However, they were cautious not to go too far here.
[edit] Scripture and the Church (Scripture and Tradition)
[edit] Understanding Sola Scriptura
As seen above, the Lutheran understanding of sola scriptura is not identical with the rejection of every writing that is not part of the canon for use in the church. However, Lutherans do insist that everything that holds authority in the church be drawn from Scripture. It is this stance that brought them into conflict with early (and later) Biblicism that claimed that no creeds should be used in the church because they contained words that were not found in Scripture. But this stance also brought them into conflict with the principle of tradition as it had developed over the centuries in the Roman Catholic church.
[edit] Tradition
The Catholic principle of tradition was defined by the Council of Trent, in its fourth session (April 8, 1546) as follows: The most holy ecumenical and general council …, recognizing that this salutary truth and doctrine are contained in written books as well as in unwritten traditions, which – having been received by the apostle from the mouth of Christ himself or, dictated by the Holy Spirit, having been passed on from hand to hand by the apostles themselves – have come down to us, follows the example of the orthodox fathers and receives and venerates with the same feeling of gratitude and with the same reverence all books of the Old and New Testaments (since the same God is the author of both) as well as the traditions – those pertaining to the faith as well as those pertaining to morals – as dictated verbally either by Christ or the Holy Spirit and in continued succession preserved in the Catholic Church.
[edit] Martin Chemnitz on Tradition
Martin Chemnitz, in his response to, and examination of, the Council of Trent, while allowing for legitimate uses of the word “tradition” (s. 1.), defines the controversial issue in this matter as follows: The Council holds that there are matters pertaining to faith and morals, not simply pertaining to rites and liturgical customs, that are necessary, but that are not taught in the Scriptures, which, therefore, must be taken out of unwritten sources which have no Scriptural support whatsoever.
[edit] For further reading:
Robert Preus, The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism I: A Study of Theological Prolegomena (CPH: St. Louis, 1970), esp. chapter 3. Martin Chemnitz, Examen Concilii Tridentini, ed. E. Preuss (Berlin: G. Schlawitz, 1861), pp. 69ff. (De Traditionibus)
