A. Francis Pieper
For an excellent work on evangelical Lutheranism, for one dealing directly with the question at hand, we can do no better than take the Christian Dogmatics of Francis Pieper. Dr. Pieper was, according to John Theodore Mueller, “for over half a century the outstanding teacher of dogmatics at Concordia Seminary” in St. Louis, Missouri. The work has been translated from the German. More recent teachers of Lutheran theology, like Engelder and Mueller himself, make grateful acknowledgment of indebtedness to Pieper. Pieper makes a searching analysis of the “theology of self-consciousness,” that is, the modern theology of Schleiermacher and his followers. “Invented for the purpose of insuring the scientific character of theology, this theology makes its advocates play the role of the man who, in order to brace his toppling
1 Philip Schaff, op. cit ., Vol. 3, pp. 93–94.
2 It was revised by the National Synod of Dordt in 1619. It is this form which is now generally accepted
Ego, takes a tight hold on his Ego. Furthermore, the Ego theology is a form, the worst form, of idolatry— self-deification.”3
But what of Reformed theology? Does Pieper share the frequently stated position that all orthodox Protestants have essentially the same view of Scripture? Does he think that all “fundamentalists” should unite in common opposition to all “modernists,” calling them back from their confidence in “experience” to belief in the Word of God? Far from it! Pieper is convinced that orthodox Reformed theology is deeply tinged with the principles of “ego-theology.” Says Pieper: “The desire to go beyond Word and faith and to walk by sight already in this life has given rise to Calvinism, to synergism, and lies at the bottom of the entire modern ‘construction theology’ (Konstruktions-theologie).”4
The main objection raised against Calvinism is that of rationalism as based upon and proceeding from an ego-theology. “What we object to in the Reformed theology is this, that in all doctrines in which it differs from the Lutheran Church and on which it has constituted itself as the Reformed Church alongside the Lutheran Church, it denies the Scriptural principle and lets rationalistic axioms rule.”5
As for Calvin himself, says Pieper, he virtually forsook the revealed will of God. “The depths of the Godhead are not hidden to Calvin; they are so clear to him that by them he cancels the revelation in the Word (the gratia universalis ).”6
Calvin’s “particularism” is said to have its roots in his rationalistic appeal to the hidden will of God. “Luther lets the Word of God, Scripture itself, tell him what the gracious will of God is, how far it extends, and what it effects. Calvin lets the result ( effectus ) of the historical experience ( experientia ) determine what God’s gracious will is.”7 “True, also Calvin says that we should not seek to explore the hidden will of God, but rely on Christ and the Gospel. But how can Calvin direct men to rely on Christ and the Gospel since he teaches that only some of the hearers of the Word have a claim on Christ? As a matter of fact, he does not direct men to Christ and the Gospel, but to their inward renewal and sanctification, or to the gratia infusa.”8 “Calvin’s theology, therefore, is not basically biblical, but rationalistically motivated.”9
In following Calvin, Reformed theology “through the use of rationalistic axioms, fixes an unbridgeable gulf between itself and genuine Christian theology.”10 So, for instance, we are told, Calvinism holds to the purely speculative maxim that the finite cannot contain the infinite ( finitus non est capax infiniti ). In virtue of this “rationalistic axiom” Calvinism virtually denies the incarnation. “In so far as Reformed theology, in its effort to disprove Lutheran Christology, applies the principle that the finite is not capable of grasping of the infinite, it inevitably denies the incarnation of the Son of God, and Christ’s vicarious atonement, and so destroys the foundation of the Christian faith.”11 In this way, Reformed men commit “theological suicide.”12 Again Calvinism is said to deny the “Scripture doctrine of gratia universalis” because of another “philosophical axiom,” namely, “whatever God earnestly purposes must in every case actually occur; and since not all men are actually saved, we must conclude that the Father never did love the world, that Christ never did reconcile the world, and that the Holy Ghost never does purpose to create faith in all hearers of the Word. This is the chief argument of Calvin in the four chapters of his Institutes (3, 21–24) on Predestination. He disposes of the Scripture declarations which attest universal grace with the statement, repeated again and again, that the result must determine the extent of the divine will of grace.”13
John Theodore Mueller, professor of systematic theology, takes essentially the same position as that of Pieper. Speaking of the confessional Lutheran church, he says, “Its theology is that of the Holy Bible, and
3 Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics , Vol. 1 (Saint Louis: Concordia Pub. Co., 1950), p. 127. 4 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 389. 5 Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 186. 6 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 47. 7 Ibid., p. 48. 8 Ibid., p. 46. 9 Ibid., p. 276. 10 Ibid., p. 271. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., p. 167. 13 Ibid., p. 26.
of the Bible alone; its doctrine is the divine truth of God’s Word. The Lutheran Church is therefore the orthodox visible Church of Christ on earth.”14
Pieper’s charge is not merely that individual Reformed theologians have been rationalistic in their approach to Scripture. His charge is that it is of the genius of Reformed theology as such to be rationalistic. The system of Reformed theology, he argues in effect, is rationalistically constructed. This we deny.
Pieper has not sought to refute the painstaking exegesis of Calvin and his followers as they deal with the doctrines of predestination, the two natures of Christ, and particularism. If Calvin and his followers had been moved by rationalistic considerations in the formulation of these and other doctrines they would have tried to show how such doctrines are “in accord with reason,” in accord with “the experience of freedom.” On the contrary, Calvin and his followers have interpreted “the laws of reason” and “the experience of freedom” in terms of Scripture as the only final authority for man. At the very beginning of Calvin’s Institutes we are told that man does not see himself for what he really is except he recognize himself as a creature of God. And to recognize himself as a creature of God he must own himself to be a sinner before God. Moreover, Calvin argues further on, that to recognize one’s sinfulness, he must have learned to know himself in the light of Scripture, of Scripture as understood by the regenerating and illuminating operation of the Holy Spirit.15
According to Calvin, man as the interpreter of Scripture must first be interpreted by Scripture, and Scripture is the Word of God. The idea of Scripture as the Word of God and the idea of God as speaking through Scripture are involved in one another. Scripture tells us that God is infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. Scripture tells us that this God cannot deny himself. It is this self-contained, wholly self-dependent God who speaks in Scripture. It is not rationalism to assert that Scripture cannot also reveal a God who does deny himself, a god who creates man with powers equal to himself. For Scripture speaking is God speaking. Is God indeterminate? Has he no character?
At this point, Calvinism and Lutheranism, as set forth in Pieper’s work, part company. With unquestioned desire to follow Scripture wherever it may lead him, Pieper virtually holds that it may lead anywhere. It may teach “that God intends what is never accomplished.” God “intends to save the world through Christ.” Nevertheless “God’s purpose is not accomplished in a part of mankind.”16
This approach is irrationalist in character. If God’s will of decree can be resisted, he is, as Luther would say, “a ridiculous God.” The nature of his power would be indistinguishable from the nature of man’s power. The distinction between God as original or ultimate and man as derivative and dependent would be done away. Then Luther’s words are applicable: “For if I am ignorant of the nature, extent and limits of what I can and must do with reference to God, I shall be equally ignorant and uncertain of the nature, extent and limits of what God can and will do in me—though God, in fact, works all in all ( 1 Cor 12:6 ). Now, if I am ignorant of God’s works and power, I am ignorant of God himself; and if I do not know God, I cannot worship, praise, give thanks or serve him, for I do not know how much I should attribute to myself and how much to him. We need, therefore, to have in mind a clear-cut distinction between God’s power and ours, and God’s work and ours, if we would live a godly life.”17
Moreover, the irrationalist doctrine of the human will leads away from the Protestant doctrine of Scripture. Romanism required men to have implicit faith in the church. From this slavery of men to other men Luther appealed to Scripture. “What do you mean, Erasmus? Is it not enough to have submitted your judgment to Scripture? Do you submit it to the Church as well?—why, what can the Church settle that Scripture did not settle first? And what room do you leave for that liberty and authority to judge the framers of these decisions of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor. 14, when he says: ‘let the others judge’? (v. 29)”18 The very idea of the Bible as a final standard of judgment becomes meaningless on the assumption
14 John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1934), p. 24. 15
Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:1–9.
16 Pieper, op. cit ., Vol. 2, p. 27.
17 Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will , tr. by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnson (Westwood: Fleming
H. Revell Co., 1957), p. 78.
18
that there is no God who controls whatsoever comes to pass. Faith would be blind trust in the guesses of men themselves surrounded by Chance.
We must now inquire about the nature of Lutheran apologetics as Pieper and others think of it. Do we not expect him to call upon men simply to believe in the Scriptures as the Word of God? If his doctrine of Scripture is irrationalistic in nature, how then can he appeal to reason at all? Yet, to “reason” he does appeal. “When we compare the Holy Scriptures according to content and style with other ‘Bibles’ in the world, e.g., with the Koran, … then a reasonable reason cannot do otherwise than conclude that the Scriptures must be divine and confess that it is more reasonable to grant the divinity of Scripture than to deny it. This is the domain of apologetics.”19 Again, “Christ is appealing not only to the Scriptures, but also to something which is known even to natural reason—to the omnipotence of God.”20
This conception of apologetics as held by Pieper and other Lutherans is essentially the same as that of other “evangelicals” or “conservatives.” Together with other “conservatives” Pieper appeals to the “natural man” as having within him a standard by which he can judge the truth or falsity of the Scriptural claim to its own authority.
The final question now presses itself upon those who hold to the Reformed Faith. The Calvinist certainly believes in the Scriptures as self-authenticating. For believing this, he is virtually labeled as irrationalist. Again, the Calvinist certainly believes that it is God, the self-contained and self-determinate God, who speaks in Scripture. For believing this he is called a rationalist by the “conservatives” as represented by Pieper.
From Pieper’s argument it appears that he is willing to take his view of being from the Bible as the word of the self-attesting God without qualification. To say that God testifies to himself in his Word is to say that he makes himself unmistakably known in the facts of the phenomenal world. In particular it means that he makes himself unmistakably known in the work of redemption as this is accomplished in the phenomenal world. But according to Pieper the Bible might teach anything about God. It might say such things as can in no wise be identified by man. In other words, God’s revelation may be of a God whose character is indeterminate and whose actions in the world in consequence cannot be identified. Thus Pieper is not willing to maintain that the idea of possibility is wholly subject to the self-contained God of Scripture. He constructs his system, in part at least, upon the idea that possibility is above God. It is this that makes identification in history impossible.
It is not that we first wish to claim for man the right and ability of identification in history, in order that then he may identify Scripture as the Word of God. On the contrary, it is because we would maintain that identification of any fact or truth in the phenomenal realm is possible to man in history only because all things in history are controlled by God back of history that we object to Pieper’s position. Identification of fact or truth in history by human reason must be frankly based upon identification by God. Only if the authority of God’s self-identification and of his self-authenticated revelation to man in history is assumed can there be any intelligible predication by man. But such self-identification of God cannot be obtained if it be allowed that God may reveal anything at all. God can reveal only that which is consistent with his nature as a self-identified being. The law of identity in human logic must be seen to be resting upon the character of God and therefore upon the authoritative revelation of God. But to say that God is both omnipotent and not omnipotent, because conditioned by the ultimate determinations of his creatures, is to remove the very foundation of the law of identity. This is irrationalism. It allows the legitimacy of the non-Christian principle of individuation, namely chance. It is quite impossible, once this is allowed, to challenge the non-Christian position effectively.
Corresponding to this concession to the non-Christian principle of individuation is a concession to the non-Christian principle of unification. Pieper holds that Scripture cannot teach that the ultimate differences between men come from the plan of God. He argues that God’s overtures to men are ultimately in terms of classes. The individual finally decides to which class, the elect or the non-elect, he will belong. Man can finally resist the grace of God.
This position involves an appeal to a principle that is higher than the counsel of God. It is in effect an appeal to a unity in which God orders only the relations of parts. It is to reduce the Christian conception
19 Pieper, op. cit ., Vol. 1, p. 310. 20
of causation as actual determination to the non-Christian procedure. For the essence of non-Christian methodology is to appeal to rationality that is above God and man as well as to possibility that surrounds them both.
B. Karl Francke
Lutheranism thinks that its doctrine of Scripture is taken from Scripture itself. Its doctrine of the freedom of the will is supposed to come from Scripture by exegesis. In a book dealing specifically with this problem Karl Francke gives a detailed exegesis of Scripture in defense of the Lutheran position. His book gives a thorough analysis of the noetic effects of sin as set forth in Scripture. The title is Metanoetik . He calls it “the science of thought that has been redeemed.” It is impossible to do more than intimate something of the nature of the argument as a whole, and to point out the notion of the human will that results from it.
Francke’s starting point is 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature, old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.” He speaks accordingly of regenerated thought as thought that is radically changed. This change is designated in the New Testament with the term metanoein .
Francke’s interest is not in seeking to determine the ethical consequences of regeneration as much as it is in seeking to determine the nature of the “purely noetical” consequences of regeneration.
The three main divisions of the book deal with the necessity, the possibility, and the actuality of regenerated thought.
In the first section, the author collects the biblical material that has bearing on the blinding effects of sin. The author brings out very well the fact that non-regenerated thought seeks at one time to know all reality and at another time maintains that nothing can be known. “Einerseits soll es Wahrheit überhaupt nicht erkenner, anderseits umspannen, was höher als der Himmel, tiefer als die Unterwelt (Job 11.7ff.).”21 This is the point to which we have called attention by saying that anti-theistic thought wants to use language univocally or give up the possibility of knowledge altogether. Anti-theistic thought will not be receptive. “ Es will sich nicht mehr passiv und rezeptiv verhälten .”22 Accordingly it loses itself in the artificial fabrication of insoluble antinomies. It refuses any help. It will accept nothing but what has come out of the depth of its own wisdom.
The stages throughout which this process of sinful thought comes to its completion are three. The first stage is that of deceit, apaty . This deceitfulness of sin may be subdivided into the deceitfulness of philosophy ( Col 2:8 ), the deceitfulness of riches (M t 13:22) , and the deceitfulness of false morality (2 Thes 2:10) . It is this first stage that places the seeds of separation from God in the heart of man. The second stage is that of erring in thought, plany . Psalm 95:10 speaks of a people that do always err in their hearts. The same thought is expressed by Isaiah when he says, “All we like sheep have gone astray.” It was this “spirit of error” ( 1 Jn 4:6 ) that moved the false prophets of old to oppose the realization of the kingdom of God. Error gives a more external expression to that which lives in the heart through deceit. The third stage is that of stupor, katanuxis . This marks the climax of the process of anti-theistic thought. To it the wisdom of God is foolishness. It hardens the heart ( Rom 11:25 ). Truth is obnoxious to the victim of the spirit of stupor. It closes the ears to the witnesses of the Truth ( Is 9:10 ). This third stage is