Part 1

Theology

With the following, we do not intend to provide a biography of the sainted Dr. Walther, or even a part of one. A biography of Walther for our Christian people will begin to be published in the “Lutheraner” in the current year. A detailed life description appearing in book form, which presents the life and work of this teacher of the American-Lutheran Church for the benefit and edification of the entire Lutheran Church, will hopefully be written later, when the literary estate, especially the extensive correspondence of the sainted one, has been ordered and made accessible. In the meantime, the following explanations, in which Walther shall be described in some main features as a theologian, will appear in our theological monthly publication.

We cannot describe Walther as a theologian without first pointing out what he understood theology to be in general. Here he stood in clear contrast to modern theology. (Cf. the Antitheses “L. u. W.” 21,162 ff.) Modern theology defines theology, for example, as the “ecclesiastical science of Christianity,” or as the “scientific knowledge of faith,” or even as the “scientific self-consciousness of the church.” Regarding the definition of the old Lutheran theologians, who understood theology in its proper and most immediate sense as a personal habitus of the theologian, namely as the ability, by means of the Word of God, to lead sinners to salvation, modern theology says that it was well-intentioned but “scientifically” untenable. Modern theology distinguishes between theology and ecclesiastic proclamation of salvation. The latter is to present Christian doctrines insofar as they are to be grasped by the congregation through faith; theology, on the other hand, has the task of “scientifically mediating” what is believed by the congregation to the thinking mind. Modern theology therefore also renounces its “immediate relation to salvation.” The old Lutheran definition, which firmly maintained this relation, is said to rest on a confusion of “theology” and “ecclesiastical proclamation of salvation.” In contrast to this, Walther, with the old Lutheran theologians, insisted that theology is a habitus practicus θεόσδοτος. In “L. u. W.”, vol. 14, p. 4 ff., he published a longer article: “What is Theology? A Contribution to the Prolegomena of Dogmatics,” to which he prefixes the following thesis: “Theology is the practical habitus of a person, wrought by the Holy Spirit, drawn from the Word of God by means of prayer, study, and suffering, to vitally know the truth revealed for salvation in the written Word of God, to communicate it, establish it, explain it, apply it, and defend it, in order to lead sinful man through faith in Christ to eternal salvation.”

Walther then proves that this definition is both scriptural and that given by most Lutheran teachers.

Regarding the objective and subjective conception of theology, or theology as doctrine and as the habitus of the theologian, Walther prefaces the following:

“Christian theology can be considered in different ways, either subjectively, as something existing in the soul of a person, or objectively, as a doctrine which is presented orally or in writing. In the first case, it is considered absolutely, as it is in itself, according to its essence, apart from what can happen with it; in the second, it is considered relatively, what it is in a certain relation, according to a certain contingency, with regard to a use that is made of it. In the first case, Christian theology is taken in its primary and proper meaning, in the second in its secondary and improper meaning. Since theology must first be in the soul of man before it can be taught by him, presented in speech or writing, and since everything concerning theology is to be judged according to what it is in itself and according to its essence, the definition of theology considered subjectively or concretely, i.e., as it exists in a subject, in a concrete entity or in a person, is placed first in the thesis, following most dogmaticians of our church.” (Lehre und Wehre. 14, 8 f. ).

Theology, subjectively considered, is then for Walther “not a certain sum of certain knowledge,” but a habitus, an ability or skill to effect something. “Holy Scripture,” he says (loc. cit., p. 10), “although the word theology does not occur in it, nevertheless indicates this as the genus to which theology belongs. Namely, since theology, subjectively considered, is that which should be in those who are to administer the office of teacher in the church, we are at the same time to seek and recognize in the biblical description of a teacher that of a true theologian.” Walther refers to Heb. 5:12–14, 2 Cor. 3:5, 2 Tim. 3:17. Regarding 2 Cor. 3:5, he remarks: “In this passage, the Apostle writes, after he had exclaimed in reference to his teaching office in 2:16: ‘Who is sufficient for these things?’, the following: ‘Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency (ἡ ἱκανότης ἡμῶν = our sufficiency) is from God.’ What is called a skill (ὲξις, habitus) in Heb. 5:14 is therefore here called sufficiency (ἱκανότης). Sufficiency, however, includes not only a certain ability and skill, under observance of certain rules, to produce a certain effect, but at the same time also a disposition of the soul, thus a skill.”

However, Walther emphasizes quite particularly that theology is thoroughly and completely practical, that it is not concerned about satisfying the thirst for knowledge, but about leading sinners to salvation. Theology is for him not a “theoretical habitus,” “which has knowledge itself as its goal and therein rests contently” (loc. cit., p. 73), but a “practical habitus.” “It is the latter,” he writes (loc. cit., p. 72), “because its purpose is purely practical. Of what the purpose of theology consists is indicated by Paul in Titus 1:1, 2, where he writes: ‘Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life.’ Here the Apostle obviously indicates the purpose of his office, namely, that he received it with regard to the faith (κατὰ πίστιν) of the elect and the knowledge of the truth according to godliness, and all this in the hope (ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι) of eternal life. But the purpose of the office is also the purpose of theology. This, therefore, is true faith, the knowledge of the truth according to godliness, and finally eternal life. See Rom. 1:5, in connection with 1 Tim. 4:16.” No one will attempt to dispute the scripturalness of this definition. Scripture relates all offices and gifts that God gives in the church to practice; through them the body of Christ is to be built up for spiritual and eternal life (Eph. 4:11 ff.). If modern theology finds that this definition of “purpose” does not apply to itself, this thereby demonstrates that Scripture knows nothing of this modern theology, and that it has no right to exist according to Scripture, at least not in the Church of God. Walther further proves that theology is thoroughly practical from the fact that true theology is absolutely bound to Scripture, and is to present nothing more and nothing less than what stands in Scripture. According to its own testimony, Holy Scripture has no other purpose than salvation through faith in Christ, 2 Tim. 3:15,16, John 5:39, John 20:30, 31. So also theology has no other purpose. Walther writes: “That the… purpose of theology is to lead sinful man through faith in Jesus Christ to eternal salvation is… undeniable. Since theology has nothing else as its object than the truth revealed in God’s Word for salvation in Christ, it can also have no other purpose than the purpose of this Word of God.” Only he can deny this purpose of theology who allows theology to draw not only from the pure well of Israel but also from the muddy waters of human speculation.

Walther wants it to be firmly maintained that everything that is not revealed in God’s Word and is not directed towards leading man to salvation does not belong to theology at all. He writes: “Thus, not only does the discussion of philosophical questions from the light of nature or from the principles of reason form no part of theological consideration, but even all investigations concerning what is contained in Holy Scripture are only truly theological insofar and inasmuch as they aim at and serve the leading of a sinner to salvation. While there is hardly any art or science that could not and should not serve theology, where it is not about a truth contained in God’s Word, and indeed insofar as this is revealed for salvation, there the proper theological consideration has not yet begun.” Walther says with Meisner (loc. cit., p. 76): “He who does not always intend this purpose and does not have it in view in all his theory (γνῶσις, knowledge), does not deserve the name of a true theologian.”

Even what appears to be theoretical in theology is, on closer inspection, nevertheless thoroughly practical. Walther adopts the following from Calov (“L. u. W.” 14, 374): “To this,” — namely, toward the enjoyment of God and eternal salvation, “everything that is taught in theology has its aim. Although some of it seems theoretical, it is not presented as theory and thus as an object of mere contemplative reflection (contemplationis) in theology, but for the sake of practice. When, for example, the nature of God, of an angel, or of man is known, this does not happen merely that we may rest in this knowledge; rather, that knowledge is directed to practice, so that we may enjoy God, become like the angels, and attain the salvation intended for man.” “Everything that does not lead toward or serve this purpose,” says Walther with Gerhard (loc. cit., p. 376), “whether directly or indirectly, whether immediately or mediately, does not belong to theological knowledge.”

And in this ultimate purpose of theology, to lead sinners to salvation through faith in Christ, Walther saw the most precious aspect of a theologian’s calling. He often spoke of this to the students with fervent lips, to make them love this service in the church, which is despised by the world, as the highest, most important, and most blessed service. Walther also was accustomed to speak of how theology contains a powerful admonition for every theologian to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, because everything in theology is directed towards the salvation of man. Without a doubt, the decline of theology in our time has also had much to do with this very fact, that the purpose of theology has either been completely lost sight of or has been greatly pushed into the distance, so that theology is no longer to be understood as a habitus practicus. If modern theologians, who also want to be teachers of the church, held firm that all their teaching and writing should have no other purpose than to save sinners through faith in Christ, they would spare the church their theological speculations, which can neither produce nor support faith in Christ, but only destroy it.