Pernicious Rationalism vs. Refreshing Truth

[DMcFadden]

I have been doing a lot of reading in contemporary theology lately. After slogging through the various "He's it" voices from Europe and America during the last century, I have been disgusted by the various theological conceits. Most of them remind me of my seminary years and the questions that sounded more like Genesis 3 ("has God really said?").

So, it was a delight to come onto this marvelous old Latin axiom that ought to be emblazoned on the doors of all theology classes: "Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum."

“In the Church no other doctrine should be taught or heard than the pure Word of God, that is, Holy Scripture; otherwise both teachers and hearers shall be damned.” (Cp. Pieper, Christl. Dogmatik, I, p. 56.) The same truth is expressed in the axiom Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum.

In short, rationalistic theology is a product of unbelief and as such is intrinsically false, ungodly, and unscriptural. Our divine Lord invariably affirmed, “It is written”; modern rationalistic theologians contemptuously reject that formula and substitute for it their own subjective opinion, “I believe” and “I think.” Thus they teach their own word, not the Word of God. Modern rationalistic theology can be cured of its ingrained falsity only by returning to Holy Scripture and adopting Luther’s fundamental principle: “All trust is in vain which is not founded upon the Word of God. God wished-to present to us His will and counsels through His Word alone, not by means of our fancies and imaginations.” (St.L., VI, 70; III, 1417.)

Mueller, John Theodore (2011-04-17). Christian Dogmatics: A Handbook of Doctrinal Theology for Pastors, Teachers, and Laymen (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House).

 

[MW]

Dennis, it is an excellent quotation when considered on its own but the context of the theologian should be pointed out. Lutherans would consider Reformed theologians to be infected with rationalism, especially the doctrine of particular grace. (See their writings on universal grace. Pieper's treatment shows the very clear difference in theological methodology.) The Reformed and Lutheran views on what constitutes "rationalism" are quite different, and should be presented as such.

Also, there is a believing subjectivity which must be recognised and incorporated in the theological system. The apostle calls it the spirit of faith whereby we believe and therefore speak. The kind of objectivity which Lutherans teach cannot be reconciled with the Reformed view of experiential grace. Hence the divergence on sacramental efficacy.

I do not mean to detract from the quality of the quotation, but streams lead to sources, and if this stream were followed to its source it would lead to a different theological system.