Martin Luther altered the face of Western Christianity more than anyone before or after him. The reaction to his work led to a split in the west between the traditional believers and the adherents of reformation. Yet it would be a distortion of the facts to charge Luther with the greatest Church schism of all time because the exclusion of the reformers from the Church was instigated by the Romans. In addition, the framework of Western Christianity had been experiencing tremors for some time before Luther. Since the work of John Wycliffe (1320-1384) in England and John Huss (1368-1415) in Bohemia, frequent criticism had been brewing against the centralizing efforts of Rome. In the century of Reformation, the struggle to regionalize the church reached new heights. Yet a regional church had always been presupposed in the Eastern Christendom. One could nevertheless accuse the Luther of destroying the doctrinal unity of the Church. But much more important was the positive influence of Luther. On one hand he noticed the similarity of his teaching with that of John Huss, while on the other hand he exchanged position statements with King Henry VIII, who aspired to create in England a Church which was independent from Rome. Also not to be overlooked in Luther’s considerable influence on the reformed wing of Reformation led in Switzerland by Huldreich Zwingli and John Calvin. Both of these reformers made great effort to come as close as possible to his teachings. Even his impact on the Roman Catholic Church is profound as at the Council of Trent there was ample of time given to the doctrine of justification. So we understand at the outset the importance and centrality of Luther for Theology.[1]
- The Dawn of Reformation at Wittenberg
Our analysis concerns the intellectual and spiritual development of Martin Luther (1483–1546) during the years 1509–1519 – particularly 1512–1519, which many regard as being a decisive phase in this process. During these critical years, Luther began to inch his way toward his own distinctive understanding of how sinners are able to enter into the presence of a righteous God, classically expressed in the doctrine of justification by faith. While the relationship between the emergence of Luther’s theological distinctives and the historical origins of the Reformation as a whole is somewhat more complex than some popular accounts suggest, there is little doubt that Luther’s theological breakthrough was one of a number of factors that proved to be of decisive importance in catalyzing the massive social, economic, political, and religious transformations of the Protestant Reformation.
This study sets out to analyze the emergence of Luther’s understanding of the question of how humanity is justified in the sight of God, focusing especially on his shifting views concerning what it means to speak of God as “righteous.” How can a sinner hope to find acceptance in the sight of a righteous God? Luther’s changing answers to that central question set the scene for the great upheavals of the Reformation. Yet a second distinctive feature of Luther’s early thought emerges alongside these reflections on the nature of divine righteousness, and how a righteous God could accept and love sinful humanity. Luther’s celebrated “theology of the cross” is the outcome of the same process of reflection that led Luther to his doctrine of justification. The two themes are intertwined in his early writings, and can in some ways be seen as two sides of a single, related question – namely, how humanity is to live by faith in the shadowlands of sin and doubt. [2] But theological reflection never takes place in a social or cultural vacuum. To tell the story of the development of Luther’s ideas, we must explore the situation within which they emerged. We therefore turn immediately to consider the state of late medieval Europe on the eve of the Reformation – especially in Germany, which played a particularly significant role in shaping the contours of late medieval Christianity, as well as laying the foundations for the Protestant Reformation.
- The Context and History of Martin Luther.
To understand the rapid spread of Luther’s ideas, a brief account of the role that the Church played in Medieval society is necessary. In the wake of the fall of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church filled the power vacuum it had left behind and went on to enjoy nearly a millennium of institutional dominion throughout Europe. While its authority was at times imperiled, as in the Western schism of the fourteenth century), its teachings and rituals gradually embedded themselves in the daily lives of the faithful. Much like the Roman Empire before it, however, the Church’s overextension of both territorial domain and bureaucratic machinery ultimately proved a corrupting force. One such instance of corruption—and the principal target of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses—was the doctrine of indulgences, a practice predicated upon the belief that one’s journey to eternal salvation could be expedited by means of worldly works. In the hands of Church functionaries eager to pad their own coffers, these “works” all too often assumed the form of monetary payouts rather than pious acts.
Enter Luther. Indignant at such abuses, he modestly aimed to reform the Church from within. Little did he know, however, that his criticism would ignite a conflagration of religious animus that was to engulf all of Europe. In retrospect it is not difficult to see why this happened, since ultimately at stake in this dispute was nothing less than the authority to determine legitimate interpretations of scripture and rituals of worship. Hence the crux of Luther’s thought is frequently summed up in two Latin phrases—Sola Fide (“by faith alone”) and Sola Scriptura (“by scripture alone”). In short, Luther argued that the relationship between man and God is a fundamentally personal one, nurtured by individual faith and subject to no greater authority than the Bible itself. Thus Luther’s critique led logically to the rejection of any intermediary authority that might stand between man and God. Moreover, no longer would mere affirmation of dogma or participation in ritual suffice to vouchsafe one’s spiritual health—rather, the individual took center stage, called upon to actively and directly participate in his faith.5 Solas were pervasive in Luther’s Reformation
- Sola Fide, by faith alone.
- Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone.
- Solus Christus, through Christ alone.
- Sola Gratia, by grace alone.
- Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone.[3]
- Analysis of the Theology of Martin Luther .
The major criteria in analyzing the Theology of Luther is its struggle and refutation of the Scholastic Epistemology which will help us to clearly place the location and importance of Theology of Luther.
2.1) Doctrine of God-
Martin Luther believed in the Trinity and incarnation. He consistently taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons in one divine essence and nature, is one God who created heaven and earth. Neither the father or the Holy Spirit, but the Son became a Human Being, and that the Father’s only begotten Son is one person with two natures, divine and human, that are not confused or separated. Till here, he is in continuity with the Catholic doctrine of God.[4] But the breakthrough came as God is not understood statically from God’s being as perpetuated by Scholastic theology, but rather God is understood dynamically from the perspective of God’s will. Luther sees in God the supreme will that can have no equal. God sets the standard by which his own will is measured. This emphasis on will makes God dynamic and action oriented where God is always at work. God is an engaging God who participates actively, decisively, and creatively in the events of this world. [5]
2.1.1) Christology– Luther Shares a lot of traditional Christology. But to work towards his theological grounds of Justification, he developed what is known as communicatio idiomatum. The idiomata, i.e. the attributes by which the human and the divine nature can be described, are to some degree interchangeable in the person of Christ. For instance, God can be everywhere. A Human can be at one place at a time. In so far as Christ is God, he can be everywhere. But even in the human nature of Christ, even his body as seen and touched by the disciples after the Resurrection, shares the quality of the divine nature and now can be everywhere. Luther ascribes the communicatio idiomatum and omnipresence of the body of Christ even to the time before His Resurrection and Ascension. This doctrine on the omnipresence of Christ of both natures helps Luther shatter the medieval theology of heaven as a place somewhere above. This presence of Christ as real presence helped him destroy the magical powers of sacraments of turning the Bread and Wine into Body and Blood to prove that it was specially not turned at that point of time, but it was actually present as Christ is always present everywhere.[6] But it does not end there. This concept also says that the general attributes or idiomatum of human beings take part in divine nature in the concrete person of Jesus Christ and the reverse is true as well: in Christ, the human being, God suffered, died, and was victorious over death. In Christ, who is God, human being has become omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.[7] This again shattered the concept of Transubstantiation based on Aristotlean metaphysics of the medieval theology. Luther in his Christology, discards the metaphysics of Non-Communication of substance where two substance cannot remain the same with others co-existing. I.e. The bread and the wine does not remain the bread and the wine but becomes body and blood of Christ, as the form and matter cannot co-exist in the same substance.[8] Luther abandons this whole schema for the biblical understanding of God. The God of the Bible is a self-communicating and relational God. God’s righteousness is his right relationship with himself and with human beings (the actual meaning of the Hebrew word “Tzedek” is right relationship). Hence, it is intrinsically covenantal and relational. Righteousness is not a quality, but a relationship. God is righteous in that he fulfills his covenant promises both to enforce death on those who violate the law, and to give life and save through the gospel (i.e., the content of the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants!). And because righteousness is a relationship, and not a quality, it can be shared. A relationship can be shared, a quality can adhere in two subjects, but it cannot be shared. Luther puts it in Freedom of a Christian, in God’s supreme act of loyalty to his promises, he shares his own righteousness with human beings (i.e., “the righteousness of/from God”, Romans 1:17) and in exchange receives their real unrighteousness into himself (i.e., the “happy exchange”). Christ does this by taking on and sharing the wrong relationship that unbelieving and fallen human beings have with the Father, and giving them his own right relationship to him. And justification as the happy exchange is rooted in a real and not merely notional concept of the communicatio idiomatum. The divine person in becoming human incorporates within itself the death and suffering the human nature through the communication of actions. The human nature receives within itself the self-communication of all the divine glory, so that by the divine power present within it, it may by its redeeming and creative actions work salvation. Therefore, just as there can be a real exchange of realities in the Incarnation, there can be a real exchange of sin and righteousness in the happy exchange.[9] This helped Luther to discard the Aristotelian metaphysics in favour of the Biblical to root his theology.
2.1.2) Theology of Justification– There are two aspects in understanding the God and the above logical progression will help us. 1) The Justifying God 2) ‘I, the sinner’. In the first, Luther asserted that God is not a Goal, but is most active God, who never ceases to justify. The Justifying God reversed the normal pattern of considering God as one and three under the category of God as the greatest Good (Summum Bonum), to which humans are attracted as their final goal. God became for Luther, first and finally the One Who Gives, the subject of justification. What He gives is not an effect of a cause, but himself and the preached word is the way he bestows this gift upon creatures. The second part of the doctrine, ‘I, the sinner’, names the one to whom God gives himself. God’s active justification is given freely while sinners are yet ungodly-the passive righteousness of receiving rather than achieving. For Luther, a human person is justified wholly for the sake of Christ (Propter Christum), which means that God does impute sin on him/her but forgives sin (Psalms 32:1). This means that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner, which is alien to human possession and she/he is considered righteous on account of Christ alone.[10] How? When a human being believes in Christ, Christ is present, in the very fullness of his divine and human nature, in that faith itself. Luther understands the presence of Christ in such a concrete way that, Christ and Christian become ‘one person.’ In this ‘happy exchange’ the human being becomes partaker of God’s attributes.[11] Luther categorizes righteousness into two kinds, active and passive and not just as one as tradition which had presumed on an active one. The active righteousness made scope for work and doing works to gain merit. In his exegesis of Paul and Psalms, he seems to have discovered passive righteousness, salvation through trusting God’s word of promise of forgiveness, imparting a new status, a new nature, a ‘clean heart’ for the believer.
This led to another break with the Scholastic Theology. Distinction between Law and Gospel. Law is not a manual that presents the steps to travel to eternal life, but is a tormentor attacking any self-righteousness one seeks to bring before God. Therefore the gospel is not ‘new law’. It is a gift-word of promise that assures terrified consciences of God’s mercy given only to sinners, a word which quickens the dead to new life.[12] Therefore the distinction between law and gospel is that Law places human beings under the wrath of God, but Gospel brings Grace and life, the law convicts the sinner to death, but the Gospel proclaims eternal life through the power of Christ’s redemption. But still Luther does not say Law and Gospel are in conflict. When we proclaim Christ as redeemer, it is also the proclamation of the Law, because redemption presupposes the existence of sin, which is based on the principle that whatever shows us what we ought and ought not to do and whatever tells us, we remain in sin is always Law. Faith moves from the Law to the Gospel, which is irreversible because the Gospel is the Word of comfort and promise for the guilty. Therefore the Gospel transcends the Law, and Law never transcends the Gospel. Faith means placing the Gospel above the Law and holding on to Gospel as God’s promise of accepting the unacceptable. Thus, in its deepest sense, such faith in the Gospel fulfills the Law because it is a Gospel of promise, which closely follows Luther’s Theology of the Cross and Justification. Therefore people are set free from the condemnation and demands of the law, transferring them from domain of law to the Kingdom of Christ.[13] Therefore the being of the human at the core is Faith as we who are killed by the law, which accuses sinners to death, are raised by the gospel promise, which grants forgiveness, life and salvation. For Luther, God became human so that we through faith might ourselves become human, in opposition to self-deification that one achieves through self-righteousness.[14]
2.1.3) Theology of Glory and Theology of the Cross.
Luther distinguished the “revealed God”(Deus Revelatus) from the “hidden God”(Deus Absconditus),by which he meant, in different contexts, either God as he actually exists beyond the grasp of human conceptualization—particularly when the human mind is darkened by sin—or God as sinners fashion him in their own image, to their own likings. In addition, it must be noted that the revealed God hides himself in order to show himself to his human creatures. Luther observed that God is to be found precisely where theologians of glory are horrified to find him: as a kid in a crib, as a criminal on a cross, as a corpse in a crypt. God reveals himself by hiding himself right in the middle of human existence as it has been bent out of shape by the human fall. Thus, Luther’s theology of the cross is a departure from the fuzziness of human attempts to focus on God apart from God’s pointing out where he is to be found and who he really is.
These two differ in their subject matter, for one is concerned with God in His glory, whereas the other sees God in his sufferings.[15] A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A Theology of Cross calls the things what it actually is. He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly and good to evil.[16] Now let us historically place it. Theologies of glory presume something about God’s glory, and something about the glory of being human. Medieval systems of theology all sought to present a God whose glory consisted in fulfilling what in fact are fallen human standards for divine success.[17] A God worthy of the name, according to the standards of the emperors and kings, whose glory and power defined how glory and power were supposed to look. Medieval theologians and preachers wanted a tough, no-nonsense kind of God to demand that they come up to their own standards for themselves and to judge their enemies. Second, out of his experience as a student of theology at the University of Erfurt, Luther suggested that these medieval systems of biblical exposition taught a human glory, the glory of human success: first, the success of human reason that can capture who and what God is, for human purposes. Gerhard Forde observes that this glory claims the mastery of the human mind in its investigations regarding both earthly matters and God’s revelation of himself. The theology of the cross aims at bestowing a new identity upon sinners, setting aside the old identity, by killing it, so that good human performance can flow out of this new identity that is comprehended in trust toward God.[18] Therefore “the theology of the cross is an offensive theology because it attacks what we usually consider the best in our religion,” human performance of pious deeds. A theology of glory lets human words set the tone for God’s Word, forces his Word into human logic. A theology of glory lets human deeds determine God’s deeds, for his demonstration of mercy is determined by the actions of human beings. Luther’s understanding of the cross as the iconic and symbolic center of Christian theology, worship, and spirituality clearly fits into this pattern. . “Theology of the cross” mounts a full-scale assault on human preconceptions of God and the conditions under which humanity finds acceptance in the sight of God. . Luther understands the cross as far more than an instrument of theological illumination, linking it with the deep existential anxieties of humanity in the face of suffering, the radical ambiguity of a shadowy world, and above all the fear of death and damnation. The cross breaks down our inadequate and misleading prejudices and presuppositions, so that a “true theology” can emerge in their place. For Luther, the cross must be allowed to determine its own conceptual framework. Theology begins at the foot of the cross of the crucified Christ; it does not begin somewhere else, and then proceed to assimilate the cross into its predetermined categories. More importantly, a “theology of glory” proceeds by prioritizing the rational – what the human mind can cope with. Where a theology of the glory depends upon the human capacity to understand, the theology of the cross depends on the human capacity to perceive – to observe what is happening, and reflect on its deeper significance, even when this cannot be fully grasped. A “theology of the cross” thus gives priority to what is experienced. As Luther famously put it, “only experience makes a theologian.[19] .
2.1.4) Ecclesiology– This section is important as we need to recognize that Luther did not intend to develop a well-developed ecclesiology. His ecclesiological concerns were made manifest in works occasioned by specific controversies or practical pastoral concerns that he found in his exegetical works, sermons and correspondences. His reflecting upon the Church was shaped by his reflecting upon the nature and function of the gospel which broadened his theological horizons. Luther’s ecclesiology is not institutional or structural but soteriological and kerygmatic. It is a Christological community, created, preserved and united in Christ.[20] In his formulation of ecclesiology we need to be aware of two fundamental shifts. i) His central theological principle of distinction and integration or ‘unity of the opposites’ that gave him a dialectical lens to view reality which lead him to concepts such as “Sinner and a Saint at the same time” opposed to the medieval theology that used “Then sinner and now saint” which is opposition in unity. ii) His understanding of the Church as ‘the people of God’ or communion of saints over against the Roman perception of the Church as an objective order established by God on Earth to do God’s work. The basic difference between Roman Catholic understanding and Reformer’s doctrine of Church is that according to Roman Catholicism Church has its base on the authority Christ had vested with apostles and successively transmitted from Peter to the Bishop of Rome or Pope, who assumed the mantle of the sole legitimate head of the Church universal. But Luther based his Church on the proclamation of the Gospel, which creates faith in the believers and they in return form the Church.[21]
2.1.4.1) Church Visible and Invisible
The separation of the visible and invisible spheres is clear enough in his writings. It first appears in his Treatise on the Papacy of 1520. He says: “The primary reality which is essentially, fundamentally, truly the Church we call the spiritual, inner Christendom. The other, which is a human creation, we call the bodily, exterior Christendom.” One must not take offense at this distinction; it is not meant to disparage that which is called the exterior, visible Church. Luther’s point is that this aspect of the Church is accidental to the true nature of the Body of Christ.[22] The Church in its true essence is an object of faith. As Luther said, it is “hidden in spirit.” When one sees the actual working of the Church, the buildings, the ministers, the administration, devotions, liturgy etc., then you know that in this visible church, with all its shortcomings, the invisible Church is hidden.[23] External structure may vary with the various historical settings in which the word of God confronts the needs of men in a particular age. It is precisely this element of flexibility that makes possible the positive nature of Protestantism-the spirit of renewal. What it did was challenge the Visible Church concept according to Medieval Theology that gave Pope legitimacy, and standing. The invisible Church defined so based on the Scriptures that effectively took away the authority of Pope and rested the authority on the Scriptures which helped the Luther to not just rebel against the Church but gave theological foundations for His Ecclesiology. [24]
2.1.4.2) Church: the Body of Christ– By stressing the word Christ, it means: Christ: the head of the Body, moves and rules His members by the Spirit. By stressing the word “Body” it means,: The Church is the Body formed of those who believe, who have faith. They form the Communion of saints.[25] The Church as Communion of saints means evangelical priesthood that is service that begins from the gospel. Luther is able to describe his understanding of Church as communion of saints in such a way that he can characterize priesthood as a law of life of the Church. When Christ bears our burdens and intercedes for us with his righteousness, that is a priestly sign from which the mutual upholding and acting on behalf of one another. The foundation of the Church is the priestly office of Christ, and its inner constitution is the mutual and the common priesthood Christians. Through baptism all Christians receive the portion of the priestly office.[26] This leads to the priesthood of all believers.
2.1.4.3) Priesthood of All Believers. The hierarchical, sacramental, and sacerdotal character of the medieval church was seriously threatened by Luther’s doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. In his tract ‘To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation’, the first of the three papal walls which Luther attacks is the theory that the clergy (pope, bishops, priests, and monks) comprise the spiritual estate while princes, lords, artisans, and farmers comprise the temporal estate. Luther’s answer to this theory is as follows:
All Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office. Paul says in I Corinthians 12:12-13 that we are all are one body, yet every member has its own work by which it serves the others. This is because we all have one baptism, one gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, gospel, and faith alone make us spiritual and a Christian people.[27]
Participation in the priesthood of believers entails connection with Christ and the Church, not autonomous individuality on a personal, spiritual quest. Rather, the community of God is where the Word is found and the Word is where the community of God is found.
This distinction between salvation that comes from God through the Gospel and a cheap imitation offered by man establishes a dichotomy between the true and the false Church. The priesthood of believers was only those that participated in the life of the true Church. Scripture became the cornerstone upon which to judge what truly constituted the living Church. Moreover, the validity of “tradition” (i.e., the councils, the papacy, etc.) was contingent upon its coherence with the Scriptural witness.
This debate intricately shapes and forms Luther’s conception of the priesthood of believers. Deposing the papacy’s self-proclaimed infallibility led to a stronger emphasis on the communio sanctorum. No longer could the pope, or any other ecclesial official, be allowed to operate beyond or outside of the community of believers. After all, Christ alone was the Head of the Church.
In fact, Luther went so far as to deny ordination as a sacrament. Of course, this was a radical equalization between clergy and laity. This did not so much deny the important role of clergy, as much as, it promoted God’s call to all believers. Sharing in that equilateral call suggested that everyone, including clergy, stood as equals before God. If all believers have received this gift of priesthood, then what significance, if any, remains for clergy?
Luther posits both a general and specific call for all believers. The general call consists of individual believers being initiated into the Body by faith through Christ. Thus, everyone that comes to faith in Christ is a priest. This is the general call to which all are invited to partake. Luther asserts, “Faith alone is the true priestly office. It permits no one else to take its place. Therefore all Christian men are priests, all women priestesses, be they young or old, master or servant, mistress or maid, learned or unlearned Here there is no difference, unless faith be unequal.”[28]
2.1.5) Sacraments:
Church was of non-sacramental nature as conceived by Luther. By “non-sacramental” is not meant the abolition of all sacraments, although Luther did reduce them to two (Baptism and Eucharist) or three (including the sacrament of penance). Sacramentalism refers to the use of the sacraments as the means of grace. Luther saw the sacraments as aids to faith and evidences of faith, but in no sense substitutes of faith. The Sola Fide doctrine recognizes faith as valid for grace and salvation quite apart from any works, whether sacramental or secular.[29]
2.1.5.1) Baptism– Baptism is an important area where Luther attacked the medieval theology. Luther believed that the whole medieval system of good works, vows, pilgrimages and an ascetic life were attempts to save by other means people whose baptism had become wrecked and meaningless. The idea of wrecking of Baptism was attributed to St. Jerome. But Luther contested that Baptism can never be wrecked. It stands on God’s promise, and our unworthiness can never destroy that promise. The ship of our baptism can never sink as it must arrive at the port of Heaven. Baptism is the basic sacrament that we need to return to it again and again to be reminded of it.[30] God makes a covenant with human beings in Baptism and agrees to forgive all their sins. The symbolic action in Baptism, being immersed or washed with water, is to be sure a one-time occurrence, but one which should be continuously actualized.[31] Luther underlined Baptism as an Act of God through human hands to undercut the power of clericalism existent in the Medieval Church. The acts of immersion in water and being raised again from water in the baptismal rite are identified with death of the old being and renewal of the new being. Under the cover of water God bestows power upon the believer and creates him/her anew by sanctifying, purifying, and vivifying both his/her body and soul. By this act, God intends to use the human creatures as effective instruments to fulfill God’s work on Earth. By elaborating here he challenged ritualism and moralism associated with Medieval piety. Duns Scotus had maintained that there was a magical power in Baptismal water to which Luther affirmed that in Baptism- purification from sin, deliverance from death, and new birth was wrought through the power of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and not the element of water. [32] Luther supported Infant Baptism in opposition to Anabaptists but that is beyond the scope of this paper. Three important principles can be deduced about Baptism.
- Its close interrelation to the cross of Christ
- Its efficacy on all human beings irrespective of their age.
- Its work of gathering the believers as a communion or body of Christ.[33]
2.1.5.2) The Lord’s Supper– Luther to relocate the Lord’s Supper, rooted it in the scriptures. He starts from the Word “This is the New Testament in My Blood.” A testament pre-supposes three things. a) a Testator knows he has to die. b) He enumerates his possessions; c) he authorizes the receivers of his heritage. God makes a testament which shows God wants to die, but God cannot as only man can die. “The New Testament in my Blood” briefly indicates that God having become man, wishes to die for the benefit of others. The heritage he left is “Forgiveness of sins, life and salvation…” This heritage is the possession of those who receive the sacrament and believe God’s promise attached to it.[34] He refuted the concept of transubstantiation of the medieval church with that of consubstantiation which affirms the body and blood of Christ are present in unchanged bread and wine by displacing the Aristotelian metaphysics that we saw above. Important for Luther was that eating and drinking of bread and wine, union with Christ and all the Saints took place. As against the other reformers he maintained the “Real Presence of body and blood of Christ as it was a sign of Christ’s sacrificial death, it assures us of the forgiveness of sins.[35] He works out consubstantiation by saying that the sacrament is held by two rudiments- the promise of forgiveness and faith. In every promise of God, two essential factors are offered to us- the word and the sign- in order that we may grasp the Word to be the promise (testament) and the sign to be the sacrament. One of the major shifts Luther brings as against the Medieval Church is that Medieval Church understood Eucharist as individualistic, while Luther argues that the individual or egocentric gains are out of the purview of the Lord’s Supper because the basis as well as the fruit of the Eucharist is love.[36]
2.1.6) Two Kingdom-
The two-kingdom doctrine, which began with Martin Luther, was developed because of confusion in his day about the roles of church and state. Both the Catholic Church and the Anabaptist movement were confusing this distinction of church and state. In the Catholic church of Luther’s day, some theologians were insisting that the Roman church had temporal powers, while some political leaders were assuming ecclesiastical responsibilities. The separation between church and state was very blurred. In particular, Duke George of Saxony forbade the printing and reading of Luther’s works in his territory of ducal Saxony, and a few other German princes were taking the same line. This was a clear infringement on the rights of the church and the Christian believer. Meanwhile, some of the Anabaptists were trying to set up a temporal kingdom on earth, while others were completely rejecting the temporal government, teaching that the only legitimate government in the world was that of the church. It is in this context that Luther developed the two-kingdom doctrine.[37]
Luther’s understanding of the relationship between Church and state is usually stated as the doctrine of the two kingdoms. It does not mean the separation of Church and State as understood today. It is related to the Luther’s distinction of Law and Gospel. Luther says that God has established two kingdoms and both are God’s creation, standing under his rule. But one is under the Law, or “Civil” function- and the other is under the gospel. The civil order has been established by God to restrain the wicked and curb the most extreme consequences of their sin. Its ruler does not have to be a Christian as he governs from natural reason. But the believers belong to a different kingdom. It is the kingdom of the gospel where one is no more subject to the law. .In this Kingdom, the Civil rulers have no authority, just as believers have no authority in the civil rule. Believer is at once justified but still a sinner. And therefore as sinner subject to the civil rule.[38] So these were not water tight compartments and he followed the method of unity of the opposites. Therefore Christian lives in two kingdoms simultaneously.[39] Luther’s theology of two kingdoms was informed by biblical principles. The New Testament makes a distinction between spiritual and temporal authorities without dichotomizing them, because ultimately God is in control of both the realms (John 19: 10-11). But scripture demands absolute loyalty to God when Christians are in a compelling situation to make a choice between their loyalty to Spiritual and Civil Authorities. Christians must be ultimately loyal to God over civil authorities which is a direct inference from Matthew 10: 28. But God is in control of both realms. The temporal authority and the spiritual authority are preserved in a dialectic tension without letting them to be dichotomized or homogenized. The Church and the State are the two realms of God’s activity for the benefit of God’s people. This distinction emerged with a definite purpose of Challenging and resisting the corruption of the Church, which had assumed political power and used the same for selfish ends. It helped him challenge the authority of Pope. In that logic, indulgences was to be condemned as forgiveness was divine grace and could not be traded. This doctrine helped him add strength to his critique of the ecclesiastical structure, which had given rise to manifestly concrete system of exploitation.[40]
- Conclusion:
The analysis of the theology of Martin Luther was a very interesting exercise. My major focus was his debate with the Scholastic Theology and how he broke the strangle hold of Aristotelian Metaphysics on the ensuing Theology and added fluidity to it. The way he treated Scripture made something impossible in any other faiths. It made Bible come under scrutiny which led to Historical Critical Method which had major impact on 20th Century Theology. The Shift from the static understanding of God to Dynamic understanding in accordance to the Will, helped the category of History and God’s intervention in history something to grapple with which had tremendous impact on the 20th Century Theology, especially Liberation Theology. The Theology of the Cross helped in the critique of the status quo which was impossible with the epistemology of Scholastic or Medieval Theology. The transformation of structures became vital and it had great impact on the ensuing development of theology. Ecclesiology of Luther had in it the potent power for the quest for equality which was largely denied in the Scholastic Scheme of hierarchy. This quest for equality snowballed in the development of ethics of equality and search for Church as an inclusive community which was the undercurrent theme of many 20th Century Theologies. The theory of Two Kingdoms which was entirely different as Luther envisaged, also became instrumental in the formation of separation of Church and State leading to the realm of Secularism and Tolerance in the context of Thirty Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia. This study helped in realizing the far reaching breakthrough that Luther made which he too did not envisage. His Theology was an Epoch that gave the lens for the epoch of Enlightenment, followed by Liberalism and many other trends in Theology. The fluid nature of Luther’s Theology makes it relevant in every context. The methodology of ‘Unity of Opposites’ gave a new methodology for the theological landscape which was formerly caught up in the duality of either/or. The dialectical methods made it more relevant to the contradictions existent in reality. The Theology of Luther helps us realize how important Theology is in influencing Society and course of History.
Bibliography
Bayer, Oswald. Martin Luther’s Theology. Michigan: William B Eerdmann’s Publishing Company, 2003.
Daniel, Daniel P. “Luther on the Church”. The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, Edited by Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, L’Ubomir Batka. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)
Gonzalez, Justo L. History of Christian Thought: Volume III. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975.
Kramm, .H.H. The Theology of Martin Luther. London: James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1947.
Lohse, Bernhard. Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development. Fortress Press Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
McGrath, Alister. Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough. West Sussex: Wiley: Blackwell, 2011.
Nurnberger, .Klaus. Martin Luther’s Message For Us Today; Perspective from the South. Pietermatizburg: Cluster Publications, 2005
Paulson Steven . “Luther’s Doctrine of God”. The Oxford handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology. Edited by Robert Kold, Irene Dingel, L’Ubomir Batka. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)
Saarinen, .Risto. “Justification by Faith: The View of the Mannermaa School”. The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology. Edited by Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, L’Ubomir Batka. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)
Sahayadhas, R. Hindu Nationalism and the Indian Church: Towards an Ecclesiology in Conversation With Martin Luther. New Delhi: Christian World Imprints, 2013.
Schwarz, Hans. True Faith In The True God: An Introduction to Luther’s Life and Thoughts. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996.
Tillich, Paul. History of Christian Thought: From Its Judaic and Hellenistic Origins To Existentialism. New York: Simon and Schutser, 1967.
Journals
Ebeling, Gerhard “Luther’s Understanding of Reality”.Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. XXVII, 2013
.Kolb, Robert. “Theology of Glory, Theology of the Cross. Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. XXVII, 2013
Webliography
Palmer, Timothy P. Two-Kingdom Doctrine: A Comparative Study of Martin Luther and Abraham Kuyper, in Pro-Rege, Volume 37, No.3 http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1329&context=pro_rege
Duffy, Benedict Joseph. in “Lutheran Ecclesiology”, Dominicana Journal, Volume 50. No.3.https://www.dominicanajournal.org/wp-content/files/old-journalarchive/vol50/no3/dominicanav50n3lutheranecclesiology.pdf
.
.
[1] Hans Schwarz, True Faith In The True God: An Introduction to Luther’s Life and Thoughts(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), 8-9
[2] Alister McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough, (West Sussex: Wiley: Blackwell, 2011), 9-10
[3] Klaus Nurnberger, Martin Luther’s Message For Us Today; Perspective from the South, (Pietermatizburg:: Cluster Publications, 2005), 2-3
[4] Steven Paulson “Luther’s Doctrine of God” in “The Oxford handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology” Edited by Robert Kold, Irene Dingel, L’Ubomir Batka. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 187-188.
[5] Hans Schwarz, True Faith in The True God: An Introduction to Luther’s Life and Thought, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1996), 60-61
[6] H.H. Kramm, The Theology of Martin Luther, (London: James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1947), 44-46
[7] Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology, (Michigan: William B Eerdmann’s Publishing Company
[8] http://jackkilcrease.blogspot.in/2013/04/how-aristotelianism-problematizes.html accessed on 19th August 2017
[9] Gerhard Ebeling, “Luther’s Understanding of Reality”, Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. XXVII, 2013, 63-66
[10] R. Sahayadhas, Hindu Nationalism and the Indian Church: Towards an Ecclesiology in Conversation With Martin Luther, (New Delhi: Christian World Imprints, 2013), 186.
[11] Risto Saarinen, “Justification by Faith: The View of the Mannermaa School” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, Edited by Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, L’Ubomir Batka. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014),254-255
[12] Mark Mattes, “Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective”, in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, Edited by Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, L’Ubomir Batka. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 268-269.
[13] Sahayadhas., Op.Cit., 188-190
[14] Mark Mattes, Op.Cit., 270-271
[15] Justo L. Gonzalez, History of Christian Though: Volume III, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), 35
[16] ibid
[17] Robert Kolb, Theology of Glory, Theology of the Cross, Lutheran Quaterly, pages 445-447
[18] Alister McGrath, Op.cit., 202-204
[19] Kolb., Op.cit., 447
[20] Daniel P. Daniel, “Luther on the Church” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, Edited by Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, L’Ubomir Batka. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 334-335.
[21] Sahayadhas, Op.cit., 190-191.
[22] Benedict Joseph Duffy, in “Lutheran Ecclesiology”, Dominicana Journal, Volume 50. No.3.https://www.dominicanajournal.org/wp-content/files/old-journalarchive/vol50/no3/dominicanav50n3lutheranecclesiology.pdf accessed on 21st August 2017
[23] Paul Tillich, History Of Christian Thought: From Its Judaic and Hellenistic Origins To Existentialism (New York: Simon and Schutser, 1967), 253
[24]Benedict, Op.Cit., https://www.dominicanajournal.org/wp-content/files/old-journalarchive/vol50/no3/dominicanav50n3lutheranecclesiology.pdf accessed on 21st August 2017
[25] Kramm, Op,cit., 68-69.
[26] Oswald Bayer, Op.Cit. 257-258
[27] https://www.dominicanajournal.org/wp-content/files/old-journalarchive/vol50/no3/dominicanav50n3lutheranecclesiology.pdf accessed on 22nd August 2017
[28] Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development (Fortress Press Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 290.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Kramm, Op.cit., 56
[31] Hans Schwarz, Op.Cit., 119.
[32] Sahayadhas, opcit, 210-211.
[33] Ibid., 212.
[34] Kramm, Op.Cit., 58-59
[35] Schwarz., Op.Cit., 120-121
[36] Sahayadhas., Op.Cit., 213-216
[37] Timothy P Palmer, Two-Kingdom Doctrine: A Comparative Study of Martin Luther and Abraham Kuyper, in Pro Rege, in Volume 37, No.3 http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1329&context=pro_rege accessed on 1st September 2017
[38] Gonzalez., Op.Cit., 60-61
[39] Sahayadhas., Op.Cit., 224-225
[40] Ibid., 227-229
merinmathewz 