# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_M rz 1909_S128
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

128 Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches.

an organic treatment of one or several main themes.“ „From this, then,
we would not be as extreme as are some living theologians, if we draw
the following conclusion, vie., that single passages and loci and points of
revelation considered out of their relation to the whole inspired Word,
and torn away from that bed in which God Himself implanted them, are
not to be used by themselves and absolutely by the theologian, but must
be taken in their connection, and as a part of the inspired plan or system
in which they are found.“ „Nowhere in the Scriptures is that method of
aphoristie interpretation, which treats separate sentences and elauses as
if they were complete in themselves, without needing to be considered in
relation to their context, more insecure than in the case of the writings
of St. Paul. For the majority of his declarations are contingent for a por-
tion of their meaning on what preécedes or follows.“ If all the foregoing
be true, the establishing of any particular doctrine by the mere quotation
of what are usually termed proof passages, unless they are first properly
considered and tested, as a part of the system in which they originally
were set by the will and act of the Lord, is à wrong. The method which
seeks to establish doctrines by a selection of certain passages of Scripture,
and which ignores their general relation to the text and to the peculiar
circumstances which gave rise to these pasages, and which ignores also the
analogy of faith, is a wrong. For the Gospel has been given to us as
àa whole if the Scripture is inspired as a whole, even to every word thereof;
and we have no right therefore to deal with it as though it were an as-
semblage of parts.è“ Wenn D. Schmauk glaubt, mit diesen Worten Missouri
zu treffen, so hat er auch in diesem Stück von der Lehre Missouris eine
falsche, von uns in den letzten Jahren wiederholt zurückgewiesene Vor⸗
stellung. Missouri hat je und je gelehrt und behauptet heute noch, daß der
intendierte Sinn einer Schriftstelle bestimmt wird durch Text und Kontext,
und zwar Kontext in allen seinen Stufen. Auch befindet sich D. Schmauk im
Irrtum, wenn er meint, daß Missouri in der Theologie alle Induktionen
und Deduktionen verwerfe. Der Artikel D. Schmauks ist zu allgemein und
unbestimmt. Seine Worte lassen sich vielfach in utramque partem deuten,
und die von ihm aufgeworfenen Fragen betreffend tritt nicht genügend ins
Relief, weder was Irrtum, noch was Wahrheit ist; z. B. folgende Stelle:
„While the human mind should not and cannot systematize above what is
written; yet, with a due regard for temptations and dangers of abuse,
which accompany any legitimate method, the human mind has the right
and duty to unify and systematize and build on what is given. Seripture
is a foundation, not only for faith and character, but also for doctrine
and for God's great truth, which can present itself, like all things in space
and time, in endlessly varying aspects and relations, according to the point
of view of each age, but which is something more and deeper than the
individual apprehension of any single age. We ean build on the founda-
tion many precious stones, and the fact that hay and stubble also ereep
into our words is no reason why we should cease construction; and say
we must not put anything on the foundation.“ (S. 542.) Nach den ersten
Worten dieser Stelle darf der Theolog nicht über das hinausgehen, was
geschrieben steht. In den folgenden Worten aber scheint dann D. Schmauk
dies doch nicht gelten lassen zu wollen. F. B.