11. First Part.
FIRST PART.
INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. Name and concept of Dogmatics pp. 1-9. Names of dogmatics n.
1[A]. The word dogma 2. Authority of the dogma 3. Material content of the dogma 4. 5.
[A] These figures indicate the numbers under which the material of the various paragraphs is divided.
§ 2. Encyclopaedic Place of Dogmatics pp. 9-14. In systematic Theology 1. Distinction of Dogmatics from Symbolics, Catechetics 2 and Ethics 3.
§ 3. Method of Dogmatics pp. 14-31. Scripture, church and personal conviction as factors with which Dogmatics has to reckon 1-3. Critical direction, which draws knowledge from the subject 4. Ecclesiastical, which deems tradition infallible 5. Biblical, which consults Scripture apart from history 6. Significance of the church and of its confession for Dogmatics 7.
On Scripture (and the revelation of God in nature, theol. naturalis) 8. On personal conviction 9.
§ 4. Division of Dogmatics pp. 31-51. With Clement, Orig., Theodoretus, Damascenus, Augustine 1, Lombardus, Bonaventura, Thomas 2, later
Roman theologians 3. With Melanchthon, Calvin 4, and later Reformed and Lutheran theologians 5. Reaction against the synthetic method with Calixtus, Coccejus 6, and still more strongly with Rationalism 7, and is the new theology 8. Division into a general and a special part, and of this latter according to the synthetic order 9. 10.
§ 5. History and Literature of Dogmatics pp. 51-139. Scientific theology, which does not yet occur among the Apost. fathers 1, becomes necessary after the combating of the faith by Lucian, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, the Gnostics, for self-defence among the Apologists 2, and then diverges in the direction of the N. Afr., Asia Minor, or Alex. School 3, and in the controversy against monarchianism [531] in the 3rd century obtains a firm foundation 4. Establishment and defence of the trinitarian and christological dogma in the East in the 4th to the 8th century 5. The dogmatic development in the East culminates in Joh. Damascenus 6, and then indeed continues, but is for a great part still unknown 7. Dogmatics in the West bears from the beginning, already in Tert., Cypr., Iren., a character of its own, even though it is also dependent on the East 8, and finds its most excellent interpreter in Augustine 9. Gregory led church and theology over to the new peoples, who at first simply adopted both (Isidore, Alcuin) 10, but then became independent and in scholasticism produced a theology of their own 11. Scholasticism proceeded in three periods 12, and had mysticism alongside it 13. In the last part of the M. E. it fell into decline and was exposed to much criticism, but after the Reformation it recovered
again 14, and especially in Spain came to flourishing 15. In the 18th century Roman theology came under the influence of Rationalism 16, and remained there also still in part in the 19th century (Hermes, Günther); but it nevertheless knew how to free itself again and appeared independently again as traditionalism, romanticism, mediation theology, and especially as Thomism 17. The Lutheran Reformation received its first dogmatician in Melanchthon and its consensus in the Form. Conc. 18, was developed scholastically in the 17th century 19, but in the 18th century weakened by Pietism, Hernhuttism, Rationalism 20, 21, and in this century attached itself especially to the various systems of philosophy, to Kant 22, Jacobi 23,
Schleiermacher 24, Hegel 25, Schelling 26, or appeared as confessionalism, Biblical theology 27, or neo-Kantianism 28. The Swiss Reformation, which differs in principle from the German 29, received its dogmatic system from Calvin and found acceptance in France, the Netherlands, England, Scotland,
Germany 30. Toward the end of the 16th century the scholastic method arose in Reformed theology, which brought it to great flourishing in various countries 31, but through Anab., Arm., Cartes., Coccejanism 32,
Amyraldism, Independentism, Baptism, Quakerism, Deism came to decline 33. Tolerance, neology, supranaturalism, neonomism now came to the fore
34. But over against the negative directions in our fatherland of supranaturalism, Groningen and modern theology there came a revival of positive theology through Secession and Réveil, Utrecht and ethical-iren. direction and through the awakening Calvinism 35, a revival which also occurs elsewhere, but usually bears a less decided Reformed character,
Germany 35, Switzerland and France 36. England and Scotland 37, America 38, 39. [532]
CHAPTER I. Principles in general.
§ 6. Meaning of the principia pp. 140-145. The name ἀρχη, principium 1.
Principium essendi 2. Principium cognoscendi, externum and internum 3.
Unity and distinction of these three principia 4.
§ 7. Principles in science pp. 145-170. Rationalism, which runs through the whole history of philosophy 1, derives all knowledge from the subject 2, but fails to recognize the princ. cogn. externum and lapses into idealism and illusionism 3. Empiricism seeks the source of knowledge in sensible perception 4, but fails to recognize the princ. cogn. internum and leads to materialism 5. In contrast, Realism proceeds from the general, natural certainty concerning the objectivity and truth of knowledge 6, recognizes both the princ. cogn. internum and externum 7, lets all knowledge begin with sensible perception 8, but ascribes to the understanding the capacity to penetrate from the phaenomena to the noumena 9, because reason in us and reason outside us together have their origin in the Logos 10.
§ 8. Principles in Religion pp. 171-214. The essence of religion, whose name is of uncertain derivation 1, is according to Holy Scripture, as religio objectiva identical with God's revelation and as religio subjectiva with the disposition to walk in his ways 2. This distinction is indispensable for determining the essence of religion. As religio objectiva all religions contain the elements of tradition, dogma, ethos, cultus 3. And as religio subjectiva they are pietas, which has cultus as its fruit 4. This religio subjectiva, which is a habitus, was corrupted by sin, is renewed by regeneration, and according to Holy Scripture consists in faith 5, which
manifests itself in a cultus according to God's will 6. The seat of religion has especially been investigated, since the essence of religion, wrongly, was placed only in the religio subjectiva 7, 8, is not exclusively the understanding 9, for religion and science are distinct 10, nor also the will
11, for religion and morality are two 12, nor also feeling 13, for religion is something other than art 14, but the whole human being, who must serve
God wholly and always and everywhere 15. The origin of religion is not fear, priestly deceit, ignorance, animism etc., 16, nor also the desire to maintain oneself over against the world 16, 17. Historical and psychological method are insufficient for explaining essence and origin of religion 18.
Religion is explicable only when the existence of God and the truthfulness of his revelation are assumed 19. [533]
CHAPTER II. External principle.
§ 9. General Revelation pp. 215-244. Revelation is a religious concept, which can be maintained only in theism 1, and consists in general in an act of God, whereby He places man in a religious relation to Himself 2. The distinction between natural and supernatural revelation already derives from the oldest ecclesiastical writers, but with Rome it became a rational antithesis 3, which was indeed modified by the Reformation, but nevertheless continued to live on in Socinianism etc. and undermined the whole concept of revelation 4. Scripture makes no conceptual distinction between natural and supernatural revelation, since all revelation acknowledges the personal existence of God, exalted above nature, and differs only in the means by which it comes to us 5. Supernatural revelation is not identical with immediate revelation, for all revelation takes place mediately, but differs from the natural in the ways through which it comes to us. Therefore the distinction of general and special revelation deserves preference 6. General revelation is insufficient, since it contains nothing of God's grace in Christ 7, but is nevertheless of great value for the heathen world 8, 9, and also for the church.
§ 10. Special Revelation pp. 224-295. Like all religions, Christianity appeals to a special revelation, φανερωσις, ἀποκαλυψις, which takes place in a threefold way 1, through theophany 2, prophecy (speaking of God, lot, urim, dream, vision, inward illumination) 3, miracles 4. Holy Scripture thereby makes special revelation known to us, not as a mere communication of doctrine or as religious inspiration or as an infusion of new life or as the
becoming-conscious of God in the human spirit 5, but as a system of words and deeds of God, which concentrate in the person of Christ and, after his appearance and after the completion of Scripture, modified, continue and are completed in the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. 6. In this rich sense, however, it is misconceived, both by the abstract supranaturalism of Rome etc., 7, 8, and by rationalistic naturalism 9, which, however, is insufficient for the explanation of the phenomena of revelation 10, and has its ground in a pantheistic or materialistic monism 11. But this monism is contradicted both by a correct view of nature 11, and by Scripture; in its view of the world special revelation takes an appropriate, harmonious place 12.
§ 11. Holy Scripture pp. 295-362. The special revelation, which is history and as such passes by, is extended to humanity and the world, in that it appears in the form of Scripture 1. The [534] Scripture is therefore not all of revelation nor merely a document of revelation, but the final act, the keystone of revelation 2. For revelation as a whole falls apart into two dispensations; the first brings about the incarnation of the Logos and the scripturation of his word, the second applies the treasures of Christ and of his testimony in the church, which therefore always stands in living, organic connection with that Scripture 3. Of that Scripture the divine inspiration has always been confessed by the church, from the oldest times onward 4, by scholasticism 5, by the Roman Catholics 6, the Reformers 7, but also often contested from without and then weakened into a dualistic or dynamic inspiration or also wholly denied 8. Scripture, however, clearly teaches its own inspiration, both in the Old Test. 9, and in the N. T. concerning the O.
T. 10, as also in the N. T. concerning itself 11 and therefore presents itself as the Word of God 12. This self-testimony of Scripture is unassailable 13, distinguishes the inspiration by which Scripture came into being from every
other, genial inspiration, from God's immanent activity in the world, from revelation and from regeneration, although it also stands in connection with all these 14. It is a speaking of God by means of prophets and apostles, however not in a mechanical but in an organic sense 15, and not to be limited to the animation of the persons or to the inspiration of main points
16. The objections raised against this inspiration are without doubt for a part connected with the enmity of the human heart 17, and are on the other hand diminished by an organic conception 18, and by a clear definition of the purpose for which Scripture has been given 19.
§ 12. Properties of Scripture pp. 363-415. The doctrine of the properties of Scripture developed in the struggle against Rome, which determines the relation of Scripture and church quite differently than the Reformation does
1, 2. The authority of Scripture in Rome rests on the church 3, and according to the Reformation, without misrecognition of the pedagogical significance of the church, on Scripture itself 4. Although with that authority the auctoritas historiae et normae is to be distinguished 5, its divine character nevertheless is not to be exchanged for a human, historical, moral authority 6. For in religion a divine authority, which however is something quite different than violence, is indispensable 7. The necessity of Scripture is denied by Rome, by many mystical directions 8, and also by Schleiermacher 9, but nevertheless stands firm, because the church always rested on an unwritten or written Word of God 10, without such a word falls into error and falsehood 11, and in this dispensation continues always to have need of it 12. The perspicuity of Scripture is likewise rejected by Rome for the benefit of the church 13, but, rightly understood, is grounded on Scripture itself, generally recognized by the ancient church 14, and for the maintenance of the freedom of the Christian 15, and of the facultas S.
Scr. se ipsam interpretandi [535] of the greatest significance 16. The sufficiency of Scripture finally, contested by Rome in favor of tradition 17, which however in the end retains no other mark for its truth than the papal pronouncement 19, and subjects Scripture to the church, that is, to the pope
19, was by the Reformation again maintained over against tradition 20, because it is taught by Scripture itself and corresponds with the nature of the present dispensation 21, without thereby the relative right of tradition being denied 22.
CHAPTER III. Internal Principle.
§ 13. Meaning of the principium internum pp. 416-421. To the objective principle a subjective one must correspond, which in each person from childhood onward, in accordance with the religion in which he is born, assumes a definite form 1, and in its deepest ground almost withdraws itself from all investigation 2. Therefore, for faith many and different grounds are also named (historical-apologetic, speculative, ethical-practical), which, however, fail to recognize the independence of religion and the work of the Spirit 3.
§ 14. The historico-apologetic method pp. 423-431 was applied especially by Rome 1, and by various supranaturalistic tendencies 2, but is, although a believing apologetics has a right to exist, theoretically and practically untenable 3.
§ 15. The speculative method pp. 431-444, followed by Hegel 1, by the Vermittlungstheologie 2, and in modified form by Hofmann and Frank 3, did indeed offer important advantages over the apologetic, but fell into the error of the old Gnosticism and sacrificed being to thinking, history to the idea 4. The attempt of Frank as well, to derive the objective truth of the dogmas from the subjective certainty of the Christian, has not succeeded 5, and rests on an incorrect Erkenntnistheorie 6.
§ 16. The ethical-psychological method pp. 444-465, though customary from of old, came into honour through Pascal and Vinet 1. It is related to Kant's moral proof 2, and in this form finds support with many in this country 3, and especially also with Ritschl and Lipsius c. s. 4, 5. But,
although religion cannot lack the element of consolation, experience of the heart can 6, no more than religious valuation, be proof for the truth of religion 7, and moreover leads to an untenable dualism between believing and knowing 8.
§ 17. Faith pp. 465-484. Since the principium internum must correspond to the princ. ext., it cannot lie in the natural, but only in the human being illumined by God's Spirit, so that [536] the dogmatician thereby adopts a subjective standpoint 1. Scripture names as this princ. internum faith, which is an act of consciousness, akin to faith on natural terrain 2, but nevertheless to be distinguished from it 3, and also not to be identified with nudus assensus 4. That faith brings with it a certainty of its own 5, which alongside scientific and moral certainty has a right to exist 6.
§ 18. The ground of faith pp. 484-509. Since this faith can be wrought by no proofs or reasonings, but only by God's grace 1, Rome thereby in principle adopts the same subjective standpoint as the Reformation 2. The testimonium Sp. S. is the final ground of faith, as the Reformation, especially Calvin, acknowledged, but rationalism wrongly opposed 3. For it corresponds to the testimony which our spirit in general gives to the truth 4, answers to the special revelation in Christ and maintains its autopistie 5. It furthermore does not exclude argumentation, is strong as the testimony of the whole of Christendom, presupposes regeneration and proceeds therefrom spontaneously and freely 6. Nor does it have a one-sided relation to the authority of the H. S., but stands in connection with the whole life of faith, assures subjectively of all the truth of God and therein also of the divinitas of the H. S. 7, and is not deprived of its truth by the mutual differences of Christians 8.
§ 19. Faith and Theology pp. 509-532. Although in faith certain of the truth, the Christian church nevertheless always, notwithstanding all opposition, strove after a scientific theology 1, which also, in spite of its many aberrations, has a right to exist and without which revelation, religion, the history of dogma, the church run the risk of being misunderstood 2. This theology is a fruit of the thinking consciousness of the congregation and has need of the help of philosophy 3. Faith is therefore distinct from theology, as also formerly, as appears from the doctrine of the fides implicita 4, the distinction of theologia infusa and acquisita and that between fundamental and non-fundamental articles was accepted 5. But their affinity is as great as their difference 6. And since theology has its origin not in faith as such but in believing thought, for its practice the developed reason and thus philosophy is indispensable 7, even though the knowledge which theology provides never becomes a comprehending and ends in admiration of the mystery 8. [537]