Martin Luther's Theology

It's Historical and Systematic Development

Bernhard Lohse

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 1999
• Print ISBN: 9780800698362
• eBook ISBN: 9781451404227
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

PART ONE

Introduction: Preliminary Considerations and Presuppositions Relative to a Description of Luther’s Theology

Chapter 1

CRITERIA FOR DESCRIBING LUTHER’S THEOLOGY

SURVEY OF PREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS

The attempt to describe the theology of an important person of the past requires a few preliminary remarks about the possibilities and difficulties of such an undertaking. The attempt is easily in danger of assigning to the thought of the theologian to be described a systematic tendency more suitable to that of the interpreter than to the one to be interpreted. That such danger in fact exists can be shown merely by observing that reproductions of the theology of a person of the past are often so varied that we might well ask whether the same theologian has actually been described. We need only compare a few descriptions of the theology, say, of Origen or Augustine or Thomas Aquinas to realize the difficulties and dangers of such an undertaking. As for Luther, descriptions of his theology are at times so diverse that the question arises whether the interpreter is in particular danger of laying a basis in a systematic inappropriate to the reformer and of assigning it to him uncritically and without reflection.

At bottom, none is immune from such danger. It is necessary, of course, that whoever intends to reproduce the theology of another should be aware of these problems, be clear about the presuppositions underlying what is to be described, and be conscious of one’s own presuppositions in the reproduction. A brief survey of the presuppositions and impulses of a few well-known readings of Luther’s theology can document the difficulty of distorting his theology.

Extensive, overall descriptions of Luther’s theology have been submitted since the early second half of the nineteenth century. Theodosius Harnack was the first to undertake such an attempt. He wanted especially to elaborate the doctrine of atonement and redemption, and in doing so no doubt correctly accented a major point in Luther’s thought. On the other hand, in the conservative tradition of the Lutheranism of his Baltic home, he indirectly aimed at opposing certain tendencies toward dissolution in the dogmatics of his time, in any event as he diagnosed them. In the foreword of the second volume of his presentation he disputed in detail Albrecht Ritschl’s appeal to Luther and pointed to the essential difference that in his opinion, at any rate, existed between Luther and Ritschl. This first attempt at an overall description indicates that the reproduction of Luther’s theology can scarcely be undertaken independently of theological movements and debates in which the interpreter is set.

The critical attitude toward an age that is superimposed on such a description is not always as clear as with Harnack. Yet there can be no doubt that every description of Luther’s theology is at least linked to a given author’s often very personal intent to make a statement, so that some descriptions are plainly the author’s personal confession.¹ This also illustrates the way in which many evangelical theologians have arrived at their own points of view by dealing with Luther’s Reformation theology. As a result, for many of them, the distinction between their own point of view and the picture of Luther’s theology can be drawn only with difficulty.

Reinhold Seeberg, like Harnack, emerged from Baltic Lutheranism and was in essence stamped by an antirationalistic, “positive” attitude toward the Reformation heritage. His view of the Reformation is lodged in the overall picture that he drew of the history of dogma. Seeberg gave an account of the Reformation position from the viewpoint of the history of dogma and religion, indicating that in the struggle between Luther and Rome what was ultimately at issue was the conflict between the Germanic spirit and Catholic Romanism. To this extent, only the Reformation fixed the center of gravity over against the ancient Greek and Latin church, a process already begun in the Germanic Middle Ages. In Seeberg’s reading of Luther’s theology this position continually comes to the fore. On the other hand, he has submitted a presentation closely oriented to the sources, which is why it is still of value today.

Commencement of the newer Luther research generally dates from Karl Holl’s important investigations early in the twentieth century. The significance of Holl’s research and interpretation consists primarily in the fact that he was first to refer in comprehensive fashion to Luther’s early lectures from the years after 1513, lectures coming gradually to light after the late nineteenth century. Luther’s early theology could now be more intensely researched than was possible previously. With the choice of themes attaching to his various essays, however, Holl quite consciously and continuously took a position toward the debates of his day, especially during the First World War and the years after 1918.²

The connection between the portrait of Luther and one’s own theological position is especially clear in descriptions submitted by systematicians such as Paul Althaus, Friedrich Gogarten, Rudolf Herrmann, or Hans Joachim Iwand. Althaus and Gogarten could publish their presentations on their own, while editors were needed to revise the manuscripts left behind by Herrmann and Iwand. In each attempt at Luther interpretation, particularly in connection with such topics as law and gospel, the two-kingdoms doctrine, political ethics, and the assessment of the importance of the dogmatic tradition for Luther, lines of convergence with the theological and political history of the time can easily be drawn. With Gogarten the link to the rise of early dialectical theology is unmistakable; with Althaus the proximity to his idea of “primal revelation”; with Herrmann the concern to clarify basic systematic concepts; and with Iwand the association with Barth’s theological starting point despite their differences over law and gospel. Yet each systematician has in his own way sought to distance his view of Luther from his own theological position.

Among church historians, as already noted with Holl, proximity to one’s own theological position in the respective interpretations of Luther is unmistakable. This is especially true of Emanuel Hirsch and Ernst Wolf, both of whom began their Luther research as church historians, in order later, influenced particularly by their encounter with Luther’s Reformation theology, to move to the discipline of systematic theology. What is astonishing in all this is that both Hirsch, who finally came to accent religious experience in view of the impenetrable riddle of fate, and Wolf, whose reading of Luther’s theology set the preaching of Christ at the center, could appeal to Luther. We might ask how it is possible that two so extraordinarily different theological positions can be indebted to the reformer. Still, one must admit that both Hirsch and Wolf enjoy certain distinction not only as systematicians but also as Luther scholars. This fact should caution us against too quickly assigning the reformer a systematic impulse without giving support for it.

Reinhold Weier’s attempt to set forth Luther’s understanding of theology deserves attention. Weier took up his theme not in systematic but in historical fashion, and by doing so intended to show that Luther shared important aspects with the tradition, but gave themes such as inner conflict (Anfechtung) or the theologia crucis new treatment and rendered them fruitful for the entire understanding of theology. However welcome such an attempt at discussing Luther’s understanding of theology may be, it must still be said that a comparison with older as well as with contemporary positions, difficult to draw in the individual instance, would require more detailed research than Weier made.³ On the one hand, it appears that Luther’s association with the tradition was considerable. On the other, the significance of his critical stance toward many older and contemporary positions can scarcely be overestimated.

THE ALTERNATIVE: HISTORICAL-GENETIC OR SYSTEMATIC DESCRIPTION

Previously published descriptions have provided either a systematic or a historical-genetic reading of Luther’s theology. The majority of scholars have opted for the first method, the second being only sporadically pursued.

There is systematic description in the work of Theodosius Harnack, Reinhold Seeberg, Erich Seeberg, Philip S. Watson, Paul Althaus, Gerhard Ebeling in his book Luther: An Introduction to His Thought, in the work of Lennart Pinomaa, Friedrich Gogarten, Rudolf Herrmann, Hans Joachim Iwand, Ulrich Asendorf, and Karl-Heinz zur Mühlen. What is strange in all this is that none of these authors has attempted to give reasons for the systematic assigned to Luther, or critically to distance it from other readings of his theology. With amazing aplomb each systematic attributed to Luther is set down as the only one adequate, without any reason given for the decision. On the other hand, rapid perusal of the variously structured systematic of these representations indicates that scarcely two readings agree even on basic questions. The differences in the evaluation of Luther’s theology not only have to do with the various starting points but also with the position and arrangement of important complexes of theological teaching.

A few questions arise here. That in describing Luther’s theology as a whole his Reformation breakthrough and thus the Reformation doctrine of justification must assume central place should not be up for debate. Should we, however, take this as our starting point and on that basis crowd all the other questions into a systematic? Or are we dealing with an important doctrine but ultimately with the theme of salvation as aim and goal and that must always be at the center in the discussion of every other theological theme? Or what position does the trinitarian and christological dogma of the ancient church have for Luther?

Clearly, Luther held fast to the conciliar decisions of the ancient church. He affirmed them not only in a formal sense but also with respect to their content. It is likewise beyond dispute that in the various controversies, chiefly with Rome, questions touching trinitarian doctrine and Christology were in the background. On the other hand, Luther could designate the article of the Trinity and Christology as basic or central. What weight do such statements have in the attempt to assign him a specific systematic? It is beyond dispute that Luther almost always composed his numerous writings, critiques, opinions, and even his treatises in specific controversies. Yet, must the attempt at a systematic reading of his theology as a whole pursue the theme of these controversies, or need we bear in mind that behind the questions of the day certain fundamental decisions are not always discussed but are in fact always presupposed? Or more basically put: What weight does doctrine have alongside preaching?

It is certain that for Luther the question of the assurance of salvation and thus of preaching stood at the center. Still, may we ignore the doctrinal element in his theology that he accented in specific situations?⁴

By contrast, there are very few historical-genetic representations of Luther’s theology. Julius Köstlin’s comprehensive reading of Luther’s theology still deserves attention. In the first section he deals with Luther’s theology “in its historical development,” and in the second with his theology “in its inner harmony.” The first section accents Luther’s dispute with Rome, the second describes in brief survey the further development in Luther’s doctrine following his Wartburg sojourn, thus the intraevangelical controversies. In his article in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Gerhard Ebeling describes Luther’s theology in historical-genetic fashion, without attempting a full systematic interpretation.

There are weighty arguments for both ways of describing Luther’s theology. Where Luther himself gave no comprehensive view, as was done, say, by Melanchthon in the later editions of his Loci Praecipui Theologici, or by Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, a systematic overall view can indicate the link between the various doctrines and the inner dynamic of Luther’s theology. Of course, we must be on our guard against too quickly constructing a systematic that is then simply assigned to Luther.

On the other side, the historical-genetic description has the advantage of viewing Luther much more strictly within the context of his time and his debates. In particular, such a reading may be better suited for giving precise definition to the starting point of Luther’s theology. In this case, of course, it would not be enough to trace the development of the various controversies and the sequence of topics in dispute. Here too the question of the systematic overall view must be raised. For these reasons a linking of the two methods would be recommended.

THE ATTEMPT AT A CONNECTION OF THE HISTORICAL-GENETIC AND SYSTEMATIC PRESENTATION

If we link the historical-genetic to the systematic method, then the first should deal especially with Luther’s ea...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Summary of Contents
• Contents
• Foreword
• Translator-Editor’s Note
• Part One: Introduction: Preliminary Considerations and Presuppositions relative to a Description of Luther’s Theology
• Part Two: Luther’s Theology in its Historical Development
• Part Three: Luther’s Theology in its Systematic Context
• Bibliography
• Index of Names
• Index of Subjects