# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Oktober 1905_S470
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

47⁰ Kirchlich⸗Zeitgeschichtliches.

Kirchlich⸗Zeitgeschichtliches.

I. Ameriea.

Das Columbus Theological Magazine leugnet die Klarheit der Schrift auch
an solchen Stellen, die ex professo von einer Lehre handeln. Es schreibt S. 194:
But even the relative clearness which the Author of the Scriptures intended
to convey to the reader is only too often not attained. The difficulty may lie
in the form in which the thought is expressed, it being practically at times
Impossible for the reader to put himself so entirely into the position of the
writer that the words of the latter will photograph exactly in the mind of
the former the thought that these words are to convey. It is all the more
difficult because in its method of thought and expression the Scriptures are
largely an Oriental book in which the historical circumstances that sur-
rounded the composition of a prophecy, or an epistle or à gospel are every-
where reflected. Just in proportion as these circumstances can be repro-
duced the reader will have a clear idea of what the author intended to say.
It accordingly is found in the nature of the case, that àa passage may be per-
fectly clear to one reader and dark to another, and in this respect too the
clearness of the Scriptures is relative, even within the limitations drawn by
the character of the Scriptures themselves and by the nature of the subjects
they contain. The possibility, then, of two persons, equally anxious for the
truth and equally willing to listen to the truth, understanding the meaning
of certain passages differently, is a fact that cannot be denied. It is neither
a mental nor a moral deéfect, other things being equal, if one person flnds in
a passage one idea and another finds a different thought. This is of course
contrary to the purposes of the Author of the Scriptures, but it is a fact only
too wellattested by the history of Exegesis. The claim so often put forth by
Missouri in the present controversy, that the passages on Predestination are
50 s0onnenklar,' is nothing else but a petitio principii. The subject is one
that has vexed and perplexed the Church for centuries, and it certainly would
be more than peculiar if, in case these passages were so transparent, all pre-
ceding generations of devout scholars and theologians had been mentally and
morally so defective that the clearness of these passages had only blinded
them. In other words, these passages are not so transparent that the pos-
sibility for debate or a difference of interpretation is excluded. Some of
these at any rate are open exegetical Cruces, because they belong to those
passages in which, for reasons in the Scriptures and in the interpreter, there
is à lack of clearness.“ — Hiermit ist allerdings die Klarheit der Schrift gründlich
geleugnet. Eph. 1 und andere Schriftstellen handeln ex professo von der Gnaden⸗
wahl, und doch leugnet das ohiosche Blatt, daß diese Stellen klar sind. Wenn der
eine diesen und der andere einen völlig verschiedenen Begriff und Gedanken in diesen
loci classici von der Gnadenwahl finde, so liege das, ceteris paribus, nicht an den
Auslegern, sondern an den Stellen, von welchen die Missourier mit Unrecht behaup⸗
teten, daß sie „sonnenklar“ seien. „It is neither a mental nor a moral defect,
other things being equal, if one person finds in a passage one idea and an-
other finds a different thought. This is of course contrary to the purposes
of the Author of the Scriptures, but it is a fact only too well attested by the
history of Exegesis. The claim so often put forth by Missouri in the present
controversy, that the passages on Predestination are s0 sonnenklar,' is noth-