# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 04 25_S138
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

138

hafter should be, dismisses the origin of Christ with the words

"He was the son of a poor Jewish mother"

But this expression becomes still more questionable, since the early life of Christ and the doctrines relating thereto are not further mentioned in the whole book, but reference is made, as to what would be sufficient, to the 15th §. of the Religious History, and that is the very one in which the expression we have attacked is found.

For in the section on Redemption the author, instead of giving a further exposition, says see Rel. History XV. (cf. Section 4. Qu. 3. p. 36.)

But the author does not say straight out that Christ was unclean in conception and birth—

Answer: That he said this straight out is not at all the reproach we make against him—Our reproach against him is rather this, that he has used no such expression from which it would follow beyond doubt that he believes in the Godhead of Christ and that he has therefore, first of all here, avoided confessing Christ.

But is this then the only passage from which the author is to be judged? — Perhaps other passages produce quite another judgment.

We have not neglected to compare the passages. What results from it we shall see.

It is fair that we begin with that to which the author, as we have seen, refers us, namely with § XV. of the Rel. History.

What is here said of Christ, and what light does it cast upon the passage

"He was the son of a poor Jewish mother?"

But it is said:

1.) He was prophesied of according to people and lineage

2.) He would bring the knowledge and a rational worship of the one God among the heathen, and loftier virtues and finer manners among the nations.

3.) He was expected under the name Messiah or Christ, that is, King.

4.) He appeared in the person of Jesus.

5.) He was the son of a poor Jewish mother.

6.) God had united himself with him in an incomprehensible manner, in the most exact way.

7.) John the Baptist called attention to him.

8.) He chose disciples for himself.

9.) He performed many miracles.

10.) He did not answer to the hope of the Jews, who wished to have a worldly hero in him.

11.) He zealously opposed errors and vices and sought to found a purer and more perfect religion among them (the Jews).

12.) It was also not intended by God that he should be a worldly ruler.

13.) He was rather to enlighten and convert sinners and save them from their sins

14.) he made therein no distinction between Jews and Gentiles

15.) this spiritual aim of his whole work was the ground of the design to murder him.

16.) This design was brought to execution through false accusations before Pilate

17.) but thereby the counsel of God was fulfilled

18.) according to this counsel of God Jesus was to lay down his life for the salvation of the human race and to shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins.

We have set forth this whole XV. § so circumstantially, in order that the reader may see we are unwilling to conclude our judgment upon the passage in question

"He was the son etc.,"

without having heard the whole context.

In which of the points given does the author now confess his faith in the Godhead of Christ?

Perhaps someone might say: In the last sentence; for there it is expressly said that Christ laid down his life and was to lay it down for the salvation of the human race and for the sake of the forgiveness of sin. But how can there be forgiveness of sin if Christ is not God? Therefore—one concludes—the author of the Hanoverian Cat. also believes and confesses the Godhead of Christ.

We answer

The author believes in a forgiveness of sins, he believes also that Christ died for the sake of it — But where does he say that, if the death of Christ is to help us at all, it is indispensably necessary that Christ be God? That is just what he does not say. And because he does not say this, nay rather, because he makes the Godhead of Christ suspect (by No. 5 and 6), the sentence correct in itself:

"He was to lay down his life and shed his blood for the forgiveness of sin"

remains without effect for the justification of the author.

The article of the forgiveness of sin leads us quite naturally to the question

How then does the author teach in the section: Of Redemption? (4th Section p. 36.)

Here at once a sentence meets us which—as it seems—most strikingly refutes the reproach we make against the author, for there Christ is called

"the eternal Son of God"

yes, straight out

"God and man" (Section 4. Qu. 3. p. 36.)

How can one then make the author the reproach that he does not teach rightly of the Godhead of Christ?

We reply: What is the question to which the words in question are the answer? The author asks:

"What does Holy Scripture teach us?

and that he grants that Holy Scripture so teaches—this we have never disputed, but the author's assent to the doctrine of Holy Scripture—that is just what is lacking.

Was he then absolutely bound to express this assent?

Certainly, for Christ says:

Whosoever shall confess me, etc. Matt. 10:33. and again:

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. Matt. 12:30.

But it will be asked: How then should he have said otherwise?

Answer: He need only have asked:

Who is this Redeemer according to his nature?

But was he then obliged always to say so?

Why not? Nevertheless we would judge his manner of speech quite leniently if he had said it only a single time.

But he does use the little word is, e.g. Section IV. Qu. 13. 17. 19.

That he does; but they are nothing but cases where it is not a question of the Godhead of Christ.

Accordingly our conclusion is:

The author indeed teaches that the Godhead of Christ is taught in Holy Scripture; but he does not teach that one must believe Holy Scripture therein, yes, by his own example, in that he says of Christ:

He was the son of a, etc.

he justifies doubt.

It remains to compare the passages where of the Godhead of Christ the discourse ought to be in the strictest sense. The author himself points to it, in that on the occasion of the question under discussion he says: See Section I. Qu. 63. and following.

What now is the yield for the confession of the Godhead of Christ on the part of the author?

Qu. 63. he says "Holy Scripture names him——

Qu. 64. does not treat of Christ.

Qu. 65. "He is named.

Qu. 66. "Certain attributes are ascribed to him.

Qu. 67. "Certain works are attributed to him.

Qu. 68. "Divine honor and worship is attributed to him.

Thus: Naming, Ascribing, Attributing, Imputing—these are the ambiguous words with which the author asserts the Godhead of Christ. For who does not know that one can name someone what he is not on that account, and ascribe to someone something he does not on that account possess?

But the author sharpens his words and says

Qu. 63. "it names only Him.

" 65. "he is expressly so named as the F.

" 66 "these attributes belong wholly alone to the one God.