For Luther, the cross makes demands on Christian response that must either be acted on or ignored. If Christian thought ignores the demands of the cross it becomes a theology of glory.
A theology of glory is rooted in religious speculation and contemplation that results in a sentimental theology. If the cross becomes the foundation of Christian thought, a theology of the cross results. It is distinguished from the theology of glory precisely because it leads a believer out of his or her speculative glaze and propels one into the decision of faith.
Faith becomes a personal decision and the existential test of faith becomes the cross of Jesus Christ. Luther writes,. The doctrine of the cross, which decisively determines Luther's concept of God and faith, can be understood only in a life under the cross.
Luther writes, "Through the cross works are dethroned and [the old] Adam, who is especially edified by works, is crucified. The Christian life of faith is therefore a life of suffering and conflict; one experiences the assaults of the devil, the famous Anfechtungen that troubled Luther all his life.
The meaning of the cross cannot disclose itself in speculative thought, but only in suffering experience. The revealed yet hidden God found, most distinctively, in the incarnation and at the cross of Christ. In the incarnation and cross of Christ God acts in ways precisely opposite to humanity's common expectations of God and thus calls forth a response of faith.
It is in the cross that Luther locates the certainty of salvation and eternal life. The gospel, according to Luther, "is nothing but the preaching about Christ. The revealed God is unconditional salvic will. The gospel is the good news of the healing and saving God. For some people the preaching of the gospel merely hardens their hearts and makes them detest God all the more.
Luther's doctrine of God's predestination seems to contradict the mercy of the revealed God. Luther writes, "God's eternal predestination-out of which originally proceeds who shall believe or not, who can or cannot get rid of sin-in order that our salvation may be taken entirely out of our hands and put in the hand of God alone.
Luther writes, "God does many things that he does not disclose to us in his word; he also wills many things which he does not disclose himself as willing in his word. Thus he does not will the death of a sinner according to his word; but he wills it according to that inscrutablewill of his.
God's supreme attribute is God's freedom. Luther is clear that God is not bound by the revealed gospel when he writes: ". God has not bound himself by his word, but has kept himself free over all things. It is here that the true believer has no recourse but must blindly have faith in God.
God does not have to keep God's promises, but God will keep God's promises. This is at the heart of Luther's pure doctrine of faith. Luther writes:. One cannot logically affirm of the one what applies to the other. The two concepts appear to be diametrically opposed to one another; almost as if there is more than one God.
Can the unity of the Godhead be maintained in the midst of such contrary statements? Erasmus asks this question in another way: Is it conceivable that the God who weeps over the death of his people causes this very death? Erasmus argues that if humans do not possess freedom of will then it is impossible for them to be responsible for their sins. If God predetermines human sin, then God, and not humanity, is responsible for the origination of human sin. Consequentially God is the cause of the sinner's death.
This is how Erasmus poses the problem and solves it by having recourse to his view of free will. Erasmus sought to make God calculable to human reason, but reason cannot cope with the paradox of evil in the world. Erasmus does not take into account the hidden God with which humans can have no dealings.
Reason seeks an earthly answer to a heavenly concern. Luther argues that humans must be guided "by the word and not by that inscrutable will. Clearly, Luther does not mean to assert that the will of God and the revealed will of Christ are distinct from one another. Although logical contradictions are evident, Luther nevertheless forcefully states, "that there is no other God than this man Jesus Christ.
Pure faith is willing to accept that secrets remain hidden behind the revealed God while reason can only establish a dualism.
God is both revealed and hidden in Christ. The believer should"fear and adore" 64 the hidden God. It is in line with Luther's understanding of the hiddenness of God in Christ, when he affirms that God "hides his eternal goodness and mercy under eternal wrath, his righteousness under iniquity.
Luther cannot and does not give a definitive answer to this question. Humans are not competent to judge or explain why one person is granted salvation and another person is not. It is nearly unbearable to see how the omnipotent God can be righteous and good, let alone merciful, when God "saves so few and damns somany;" 67 but through faith and his interpretation of the Bible Luther maintains that God is somehow good and righteous.
Faith in the assertion of God's goodness is absolutely necessary for Luther. At the end of his treatise on The Bondage of the Will , Luther admits that in the light of nature the rationality of fallen humanity such an assertion is absurd, but in the light of grace the revelation of God in Christ the assertion is believable but not demonstrable; and in the light of glory God's perfected Kingdom in the eternal life beyond this life people shall discover the unquestionable truth of what on earth people can only believe.
Implications for Christian Ethics [35] Perhaps one of the greatest legacies of Luther's theology is that he did not try to provide a formal systematic theology complete with all the answers.
Luther believes that a totally rationalized Christianity is a Christianity that ultimately leads to atheism or skepticism. A rational Christianity would no longer require grace and faith in a transcendent God acting in the world.
There is no space for free will in Luther's theology because the human will is held in complete bondage to either God or Satan. Erasmus' mitigated skepticism places too much emphasis on human faculties.
But for Luther skepticism is unthinkable: Without the certainty that God knows all things, not contingently, but necessarily, Christians will soon stop trusting in God's promises and then all faith will be lost and the gospel reduced to a mockery. Luther's theology is rooted in a pure doctrine of faith that must always be distinct from any contingent notion of works-righteousness or self-righteousness.
For Luther, Christian liberty is not a human achievement but a gift of God's grace. Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number. Search within God in Martin Luther.
Keywords Martin Luther theology of the cross predestination goodness sovereignty free will omnipresence omniscience hidden God. Subjects Theology and Philosophy of Religion Christianity. You do not currently have access to this article Login Please login to access the full content. Subscribe Access to the full content requires a subscription. Oxford University Press. Sign in to annotate. Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution. You could not be signed in, please check and try again.
Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number. Search within In This Article I. God and Justification II.
God Unpreached III. Hendrix, Scott H. Schwetschke, —60, vol 11, — Becker, Sigbert W. Bielfeldt, Dennis D. Dalferth, Ingolf U. Trakakis eds. Forde, Gerhard O. Lohrmann trans. Kellerman, James A. Marshall, Bruce D. McGrath, Alister E. Vercruysse, Joseph E. Geburtstag Martin Luthers , pp. Oberman, Heiko A. Ozment ed. Gordon Rupp and A. Marlow trans. Also translated by Peter Macardle in Erasmus vol 76, pp. Lutheri , translated by Clarence H.
Miller trans. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Hodgson, Peter C. Jenson, Robert W. Parry ed. McSorely, H. Pigden, Charles R. Smith, John H. Luther: Philo- logos vs. Antinomian Theses and Disputations WA Minneapolis: Lutheran Press, Schultz trans. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, Louis, MO: Concordia. Helmer trans. Cayzer trans. Biermann, Joel D. Hertz trans. Cargill Thompson, W. Carty, Jarrett A. Krodel trans. McKim, Donald K.
Braaten and Robert W. Jenson eds. Sanders, E. Morse and William M. Thompson eds. Rasmussen trans. Wright, William J. Academic Tools How to cite this entry. Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.
0コメント