Concou()ia Theological Monthly NOVEMBER 1950 ARCHIVE VOL. XXI NOVEMBER 1950 No.ll Brunner and Luther on Scriptural Authority By H. ARMIN MOELLERING IN its struggle with Roman Catholicism the Reformation made its appeal from tradition and an authoritatively interpreting Church to the Scriptures. This basic approach of the Reformers is obvious and universally recognized. Some writers, nonetheless, have failed to note the coJT'lpletE' cleavage between Romanism and the Reformers at this point.1 Emil Brunner sees clearly that whatever the token deference of Rome to the authority of Scripture may be, in point of fact Rome forsakes Scripture and rests her authority in the interpretive and teaching office of the Church. Rome operates with "die massgebende Autoritaet der kirchlichen Schriftauslegung." 2 I. REJECTION OF VERBAL INSPIRATION AND CLA[[l!i TO AFFINITY WITH LUTHER Brunner does not wish to fall prey to the mistake of Rome. Rather he purports to represent and follow the example of the Reformers in grounding doctrine on the Scriptures. At the same time he rejects the orthodox doctrine of verbal inspiration with sharp condemnation. "Die absolute Auszeichnung des sprachlichen Wortes, der Bibel, wie sie in der traditionellen Gleichung Bibelwort = Gotteswort geschieht -oder doch wenigstens immer wieder zu geschehen droht -, waere ein Verstoss gegen das zweite Gebot; Kreaturvergoetterung, Bibliolatrie." 3 In claiming the Reformers for his position, Brunner admits that Calvin gives him difficulty. "Calvin liebt es, von den oracula Dei zu sprechen und verwendet mit Vorliebe die Vorstellung vom goett-51 802 BRUNNER AND LUTHER ON SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY lichen Diktat." 4 Brunner appeals to the Reformers of the first generation, Luther and Zwingli, who in his opinion penetrated to the proper understanding of Scriptural authority, whereas Melanchthon, Calvin, and Bullinger are too much given to the doctrine of verbal inspiration. Since Brunner's special appeal is to Luther, it is with Luther that the investigation must concern itself. Here an ominous difficulty is encountered. The scholars, as is well known, are in disagreement concerning Luther's view of Scriptural a u t h o r i t y . ~ Their varied opinions are helpful in alerting the student for a critical approach to Luther's own words, which must be determinative in the evaluation of Brunner's understanding of Luther on this critical point. II. BRUNNER'S CONCEPT OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY CoNTROLLED BY THOUGHT OF "W AHRHEIT ALS BEGEGNUNG" Brunner is concerned with rescuing theology from the equally fallacious extremes of objectivism and subjectivism. At its worst the objectivizing of theology is seen in Romanism, where the truth becomes a quantity manipulated by the Church. But subjectivism, with its exposure of the truth to the ravages of individual caprice, is to be rejected with equal emphasis. Brunner believes he has found the solution in his concept of "Wahrheit als Begegnung." 6 This basic principle has become a formative factor in his entire theological presentation. In the foreword to Volume Two of his Dogmatik, Brunner mentions that when he visited in the United States shortly after the publication of the first volume of his Dogmatik, a colleague expressed the desire that the new insights of the book Wahrheit als Begegnung be applied to a presentation of the entirety of Christian doctrine. The proposed three volumes of Brunner's Dogmatik, two of which have now appeared, are to mark an attempt in this direction. Brunner regards as false the antithesis: Liberalism vs. Orthodoxy. It is his fear that the rediscovery of the Biblical truth on the part of the "dialectical theology" has begun to harden in a rigid Biblicism and confessionalism. The churches have failed to realize that their respective traditions are loaded with encrustations of many years' standing, which have developed from a lack of appreciation for the concept of "truth in encounter." Rather, it has been the traditional misunderstanding BRITh1NER. AND LUTHER ON SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY 803 that faith is the acceptance of revealed truths. From this only one development can follow, namely, the rigidity and sterility of orthodoxy. Understanding of the concept "Wahrheit als Begegnung" is to achieve the living synthesis of critical thinking and believing Christian thinking. The frigidity of faith in orthodoxy is avoided. Freedom is won for a faith that roots only in the love of God revealed in Christ Jesus.7 How the principle espoused by Brunner is applied and to what kind of results it leads is clarified by an examination of his development of the thesis in his understanding of the authority of Scripture. It is of primary importance that objectivizing of the truth be avoided. Truth is found not in an encounter with Scripture, but in an encounter with God. Hence faith is not an impersonal, mechanical process, but the warmly personal "Ich-Du" meeting of the individual with God in the Person of Jesus Christ. To postulate a verbally inspired, infallible Scripture means for Brunner that the object of faith becomes the Bible and not the Christ of the Bible. Everything degenerates into cold objectivity. Es ist von vornherein ausgemacht, dass der Christusglaube der richtige Glaube ist, weil dieser Glaube von der heiligen Schrift oder von der Kirche ge1ehrt wird. Dass aber die Lehre der Kirche oder der heiligen Schrift die Wahrheit ist, das muss von VOtnherein, axiomatisch angenommen werden. Man glaubt an Jesus Christus, weil man zuerst an die Lehrautoritaet der Kirche oder der Bibel glaubt.8 That this is hardly an accurate representation of orthodoxy is to be demonstrated below. In order to safeguard the personal, "existential" character of the encounter, Brunner's recurring emphasis is that Scripture points man to something outside itself and is therefore best described not as itself being the revelation but as "Zeugnis," testimony, or witness, to the revelation proper. "Die Apostel, die ersten Lehrer der christlichen Gemeinde, wissen sich selbst als Zeugen der goettlichen Offenbarung." 9 Since the written word of Scripture is only a testimony and a witness, the revelation proper is not at all a word as ordinarily 804 BRUNNER AND LUTHER ON SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY 'understood but the "Word made flesh," Jesus Christ. "Damit ist urunissverstaendlich gesagt, dass 'das Wort Gottes' nicht das ist, was wit Menschen unter 'Wort' verstehen; er selbst, Jesus Christus, ist das 'Wort' Gottes." 10 This reduces the status of the written word of Scripture to that of a means whose function it is to point to Christ. "Das Wort ist dabei nur Mittel; denn das eigentliche Wort istr ja eben Jesus Christus selbst." 11 The function of Scripture in Brunner's thought is to make accessible to later generations an encounter with the "Word made flesh." Men need to be brought into a "Personen-begegnung" and "Personen-gemeinschaft" with Christ Jesus. To realize this "Ereignis," the written word is important in the secondary status of functioning as a medium. Even from this sketchy outline it is evident that Brunner's concept of Scriptural authority is dominated and controlled by an abhorrence for objectivity. Properly speaking, revelation is, therefore, a process or an event. n denn Offenbarung ist ja nicht ein Etwas, eine Sache, sondern ein Vorgang, ein Geschehnis .... " 12 Accordingly, Scripture must be experienced. Only on the basis of this experience and encounter with Christ in Scripture does the Biblical message become truth for the individual. Christ, not the written word of Scripture, is the principium cognoscendi. For an evaluation of Brunner on the topic of Scripture the final issue of his presentation must be brought to the fore. Where truth is communicated through an encounter with Christ mediated by Scripture, there is no need for a reliable, infallible Scripttlre. " ... Gott kann, wenn er will, einem Menschen sogar durch falsche Lehre sein Wort sagen .. , ," 13 In fact, Brunner's presentation forces the student to the conclusion that the encounter with Christ is better mediated by a fallible than by an infallible Scripture. This i.s apparent from the repeated charges Brunner makes against orthodo:x-y. "Die Orthodoxie ist falsche Heteronomie, die an die Stelle des eigenen Glaubens an Jesus den Glauben an das Zeugnis der Apostel, also den Glauben an die Autoritaet der Schrift setzt." 14 "Man glaubt an Jesus, wei! man zuerst an die· Schrift glaubt." 15 Is this erroneous exchange of the object of faith inextricably interwoven with the orthodox belief in an infallible Scripture? Since John Gerhard seems to be the particular target of Brunner's accusations, i[ is apropos that he be given a hearing. BRUNNER AND LUTHER ON SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY 805 Fides autem non est nuda opinio et professio, sed Viva et efiicax Christi in Evangelio propositi apprehensio; est plenissima de gratia Dei persuasio, fiducialis cordis nostri quies, et pax in Christi merito recumbens. Nascitur haec fides ex verbi divini semine; nam fides et spiritus unum sunt, verbum autem Spiritus sancti vehiculum: fructus sequinlr naturam sui seminis. Fides di ~ i n u s fructus est, ergo et semen divinum adesse oportet, scilicet verbum.16 There is no evidence here that Brunner's charge is warranted. Faith is still the apprehension of Christ and His merit. Brunner has not correctly analyzed the difference between himself and orthodoxy. Where does it lie? Compare with Gerhard's definition the words of Brunner. "Nach der biblischen Auffassung des Glaubens glaubt man an Jesus als den Christus nicht darwn, weil er durch Kirche oder SchrHr so gelehrt wird, sondern darum, weil er, Jesus,der Christus, als das wahrhafte Gotteswort uns im Zeugnis der Scprift begegnet." 17 Gerhard's definition adds that such a divine fruit as faith requires the presence of a divine seed, namely, an infallible Scripture. Here Brunner dissents. One cannot but infer that Brunner believes a fallible Scripture is better, in fact, is necessary. Neither is Brunner's charge accurate that Gerhard first requires acceptance of Scripture as infallible and from this argues for faith in Jesus set forth in the infallible Scripture as the Christ. The order, is reversed. Jesus the Christ is encountered in the Scripture. Because Scripture has effected this meeting in faith, there de· velops also a profound respect for the Scripture in which Jesus the Christ has been found. Gerhard believes that accurate testimony includes an accurate testifier. Brunner is convinced that reliable testimony is better found in the muddled witness. As soon as the witness is said to be unimpeachable, the objection is made that credence is placed in the witness and not in that to which he bears testimony.Is The issues of Brunner's presentation of Scriptural authority as controlled by the principles of "Wahrheit als Begegnung" must come to an understanding with Luther. Orthodoxy linked reliable testimony to a reliable testifier. Did Luther? Quod alias monui saepe, hic repeto, iterumque monebo, ut 806 BRUNNER AND LUTHER ON SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY Christianus lector primam operam navet quaerendo sensui illi, ut vocant, literali, qui salus tota est fidei et theologiae christianae substantia, qui in tribulatione et tentatione solus subsistit et portas inferi cum peccato et mane vincit atque triumphat in laudem et gloriam dei.19 The literal sense of Scripture is the substance of faith. This is precisely what Brunner has proscribed. This is not merely a chance remark of Luther, but rather a constant emphasis. "Auff das bestendig bleib die schrifft in einem gewissen, ein£eltigen, untzurteiligen vorstand, darauff sich unsser glaub on alles wancken muge bawen." 20 Quomodo enim fidem certam doceas, quando sensum incertum facis? 21 Nusquam cerni potest, qllid Detts velit, qllid ei placeat, nisi in verbo ipsius. Hoc certos nos reddit Deum obiecisse omnem iram ac odium erga nos, cum tradiderit filium suum unigenitttJ77 pro peccatis nostris etc.22 Luther grounds certainty on Word and Sacrament. . . . Dem promisit, Delis mentiri non potest, Dei neque dicta, neqzle facta fallunt .... Verum hoc omnium est gravissimum peccatttm existimare, quod et in verba suo, signa et opere Deus mentiatNJ" .... 2 ~ The substitution of faith in the Scriptures for faith in the Christ of the Scriptures on the part of orthodoxy is a myth of Brunner's invention. The conjoining of reliable testimony and infallible witness is present also in Luther's thought. III. EXAMINATION OF BRUNNER'S ApPEAL TO LUTHER Brunner definitely claims Luther for his understanding of Scriptural authority: "Die Lehre von der Unfehlbarkeit des Schriftbuchstabens -die der groesste Bibelmann unserer Kirche, Luther selbst, ausdruecklich verworfen hat. . . ." 24 This assertion can probably be best evaluated by examining critically the quotations from Luther to which Brunner makes appeal. A. Without any pretense at reproducing every Luther quotation to which Brunner refers in this connection the following are listed as of special significance in Brunner's estimation. The attempt is made to group quotations under a heading derived from the interpretation Brunner gives them. There are two points of emphasis. 1. The Scriptures are Christo-centric: "Die Krippe, darinnen Christus liegt." 25 "Was Christum treibet, das ist apostolisch." 26 Christ is: rex et dominus scripturae.27 "Das ist der rechte Pruefstein, BRUNNER AND LUTHER ON SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY 807 alIe Buecher zu tadeln, wenn man sieht, ob sie Christum treiben oder nicht, sintemal aIle Schrift Christum zeigt und St. Paulus nichts denn Christum wissen will. Was Christum nicht lehrt, das ist noch nicht apostolisch, wenn's gleich S. Peter oder Paulus lehrte." 28 "Weiss ich aber, was ich glaube, so weiss ich, was in der Schrift steht, und die Schrift hat nicht mehr denn Christum und den christlichen Glauben in sich." Si adversarii scripturam urserint contra Christttm, urgemus Christum contra scriptttram. Scriptura est non contra, sed pro Christo intelligenda, ideo vel ad eum referenda, vel pro scriptura non habenda.29 2. The Scriptures are self-authenticating. "Es muss ein jeglicher allein darum glauben, dass es Gottes Wort ist und dass er inwendig befinde, dass es Wahrheit sei."