Martin Luther's Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development

1. Criteria for Describing Luther's Theology

Chapter I 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 die possibilities and difficulties of such an undertak­ ing. The attempt is easily in danger of assigning to die diought of die dieologian to be described a systematic tendency more suitable to diat of die interpreter dian to die one to be interpreted. That such danger in fact exists can be shown merely by observing diat reproductions of die dieology of a person of die past are often so var­ ied that we might well ask whedier die same dieologian has actually been described. We need only compare a few descriptions of the dieology, say, of Origen or Augus­ tine or Thomas Aquinas to realize the difficulties and dangers of such an undertak­ ing. As for Luther, descriptions of his dieology are at times so diverse diat die question arises whether die interpreter is in particular danger of laying a basis in a systematic inappropriate to die reformer and of assigning it to him uncritically and without reflection. At bottom, none is immune from such danger. It is necessary, of course, diat whoever intends to reproduce die dieology of anodier should be aware of diese problems, be clear about die presuppositions underlying what is to be described, and be conscious of one's own presuppositions in die reproduction. A brief survey of die presuppositions and impulses of a few well-known readings of Ludier's dieol­ ogy can document die difficulty of distorting his dieology. Extensive, overall descriptions of Ludier's dieology have been submitted since die early second half of die nineteendi century. Theodosius Harnack was die first to undertake such an attempt. He wanted especially to elaborate die doctrine of atone3 4 INTRODUCTION ment 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 descrip­ tion 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 per­ sonal confession.'This also illustrates die way in which many evangelical dieologians have arrived at their own points of view by dealing with Ludier's Reformation the­ ology. As a result, for many of them, die distinction between dieir own point of view and die picture of Luther's dieology can be drawn only widi difficulty. Reinhold Seeberg, like Harnack, emerged from Baltic Ludieranism and was in essence stamped by an antirationalistic, "positive" attitude toward die Reformation heritage. His view of die Reformation is lodged in die overall picture diat he drew of the history of dogma. Seeberg gave an account of die Reformation position from die viewpoint of die history of dogma and religion, indicating diat in die struggle between Ludier and Rome what was ultimately at issue was the conflict between die Germanic spirit and Cadiolic Romanism.To diis extent, only die Reformation fixed the center of gravity over against die ancient Greek and Latin church, a process already begun in the Germanic Middle Ages. In Seeberg's reading of Ludier's theol­ ogy diis position continually comes to die fore. On the odier hand, he has submitted a presentation closely oriented to die sources, which is why it is still of value today. Commencement of die newer Ludier research generally dates from Karl Holl's important investigations early in die twentiedi century. The significance of Holl's research and interpretation consists primarily in die fact diat he was first to refer in comprehensive fashion to Ludier's early lectures from die years after 1513, lectures...