Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.
[by C. F. W. Walther]
On p. 9, Dr. Buchwald continues as follows:
“But do the Free Church members really have one doctrine based on the Lutheran Confessions? Yes, they say.” (Underlined by us.)
Every reader will expect that the lord writer will now continue:
“But that is by no means the case! The Free Church also lacks ‘one doctrine’.”
But far from it! On the contrary, the Licentiate continues:
"But let us see how they achieve such unity!" (Underlined by us.)
According to this, he seems to concede to the Free Church unity of doctrine, namely, as we shall soon see, on the basis of the Lutheran Confessions, and only finds the way in which this is achieved reprehensible. By the form of the question: “Have (they) really”, he thus seems, quite unusually, to want to introduce not a negation, but an affirmation! [i.e., that the Free Church does have unity of doctrine.] By what immediately follows, however, the doctor seems to want to make the matter uncertain again. Before the writer criticizes the Free Church's way of establishing and maintaining unity, he says:
“First of all, the Free Church members themselves must admit that there is enough controversy among them.”
And this is proved quite rightly by the long doctrinal dispute in which the Missouri Synod has been involved with the Synod of Buffalo. But this dispute only proves that doctrinal disagreement can also occur between free churches. But who has ever denied this? To deny this would simply be ridiculous. Or who has ever claimed that a church, as soon as it becomes a free church, immediately agrees on doctrine among other free churches? After all, it is also an undeniable fact that some free churches are not much less lacking in doctrinal unity than the state churches. <page 130>
In a footnote on p. 9, Buchwald remarks in passing that we had called "the Reformed the infidels of Zwingli" and used to call the "opponent of the Free Church in general a 'plague, poisonous plant, Satan's deception and the like'". We must declare both to be untrue until Buchwald proves that we or anyone in our community has spoken or written so foolishly and un-Christianly. It is true, however, that the Reformed, when they reject doctrines which are found bright and clear in God's Word, prove themselves unbelievers in that part. (Mark 9:24.) But this does not deny the saving faith of every Reformed person, since sometimes, as I have said, even believing Christians show themselves unbelieving in certain points. —
%20the%20zeal%20for%20truth.jpg "spirit of religious union…kill(s) the zeal for truth")
Furthermore, when Buchwald in the same footnote calls it "somewhat strong" that we speak in a sermon of the "spirit of a syncretistic [religionsmengerischen] union", "which now blows through the whole of Christendom like a pestilential air and suffocates and kills all love for pure truth already at birth" — we cannot take back a word of it. Or is not the spirit of religious union really the prevailing one now, and does not the principle of this union, that unity in truth is not necessary, indeed not even possible, kill the zeal for truth more than the most passionate defense of error, in which one thinks one must fight for the truth? Experience teaches that a sincere fanatic, like Saul, is more likely to finally fall for the truth when he is convicted than an indifferentist, like Pilate, who regards the one who professes to have found the truth as a fanatic and to whom he shouts with a scornful smile: "What is truth?"
On p. 10, Buchwald continues:
"But how does the Free Church maintain its doctrinal unity despite such disputes? It proceeds thus: If a controversial question arises, it is dealt with and finally answered at the next synod assembly." —
Quite right! But how on earth should a synod proceed when false doctrine arises in its midst if this procedure is wrong? Should it not "deal with" the heresy that has come to light at its next meeting? Or should it at least not "definitively answer" the disputed question, but leave the matter undecided? According to Acts 15, what did the first Christians at Antioch do when a "controversial question" arose among them and such great discord arose over it that even Paul was unable to restore unity? —
[In Acts 15] They brought the question before the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. And what did they do? They set up a synod, "considered", that is, discussed the dispute that had come to light with the whole church and finally decided it on the basis of the writings of the prophets; indeed, in fellowship with the whole church, they finally put the final synod decision in writing and handed it to the deputies of the Antiochian <page 131> church. But what else do we Free Church members do? —
However, Buchwald immediately adds, probably to help his groundless criticism:
"The decision of the Synod is considered the pure teaching of the Word of God, just like a decree of a general council recognized by the Catholic Church or the 'ex cathedra' pronouncement of the infallible pope. Here, as there, he who refuses to accept the decree is excommunicated."
We must explain the following: If we could not assume that this account is merely the product of a vivid imagination, we could declare it to be nothing other than an infamous accusation [insimulation]. But it is well known that there are people in whom the creative imagination is so strong that they themselves believe, at least in the end, in the reality of its creatures, especially when the wish that it were so is the father of the thought. What Mr. Licentiate says here about our Free Church is again simply quite untrue.
The principle valid and implemented in our Free Church is: The authentic judge in matters of faith and life is the triune God, the voice of this judge is the divine writings of the apostles and prophets, but the church, in whatever form it may judge, is only a servant, whose judgment has no power and validity flowing from its own authority; it is merely a judge, and indeed judex probans, [trial judge] whose final judgment unites consciences only to the extent that this judge clearly and irrefutably proves it to be God's final judgment from Holy Scripture. The final judgment is not both authoritative and logical. Therefore, in her so-called decrees with the apostles, elders and brethren in Jerusalem, the Church must first be able to say: "It pleases the Holy Spirit" before she can say: "And us" (Acts 15:28). If she cannot say this in advance in her decrees, then her "And us", namely her decision, is null and void.
In our Free Church every member is instructed to submit to the decision of no pastor, no congregation, no presbytery, no ministry, no synod president and no synod in matters of conscience, unless they prove that God has already so decided in His Word.
Even as far as the power of the church in matters of conscience is concerned, our Free Church heartily agrees with what Johann Gerhard, among others, writes:
"The true church does not command to do or refrain from doing things of conscience for the sake of her commandment, but only for the sake of order and decency, that order be kept and offense be avoided; so long, therefore, as this is not violated, she leaves consciences free, and neither imposes scruples on them, nor imposes necessity on them." 1)
—————
1) "Vera ecclesia res adiaphoras non jubet facere vel omittere propter suum mandatum, sed tantum propter τάξω καί ενσχημοσυυηυ conservandam, ut ordo observetur et scandalum vitetur, quae, quamdiu non violantur, conscientias liberas relinquit, nec iis vel scrupulum injicit, vel necessitatem imponit." (Confess. cathol. L. II. art. 3. c. 7. fol. m. 627.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.