Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Unsystematic Theology

Home
Progressive Christian
12 Notes on Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Heidelberg Disputation)

12 Notes on Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Heidelberg Disputation)

Last updated on: May 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm by Kyle Roberts

12 Notes on Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Heidelberg Disputation) 2016-05-31T17:12:53-05:00 Kyle Roberts

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In 1518, at a meeting of the Augustinian Order in Heidelberg, Germany, a monk named Leonhard Beier had the task of defending a series of assertions which Luther had written. Luther himself presided over the meeting. These assertions were a kind of explanatory follow-up to the 95 theses.

CC0 Public Domain, via Pixabay

The controversy over the Disputation resulted in the famous “Leipzig debate” that next year between Catholic apologist, Johann Eck, on the one side and Andreas Karlstadt and Luther on the other.

In the Heidelberg Disputation Luther continues his attack against scholastic theology, the influence of Aristotle in Christian theology, and develops his “theology of the cross” versus a “theology of glory.”

What follows are a few commentary notes (these have not been verified by Luther scholars, I must add) on the Heidelberg Disputation, which is the early expression of Luther’s theology of the cross.

1. Luther begins with a presumption to have relied completely upon divine revelation, “distrusting completely our own wisdom, thereby aligning his assertions with the divine revelation of Paul, as interpreted through Augustine.

2. God’s law–in the hands of sinners–is actually a hindrance to righteousness. Why? Because humanity is so thoroughly impacted by original sin (the “Fall”) that God’s law, as it is understood and practiced apart from the miracle of infused/imparted grace (Luther will eventually speak of “imputed” rather than “infused” and “imparted”), actually has an inverse effect. People are deceived into believing their commitment to the law makes them righteous. In truth they are only exacerbating their situation; they are self-righteous, which is even worse than outright disobedience and rebellion.

3. We must distinguish rightly between “works of men” and “works of God”

Works of men [people] are those presumably good works or good deeds done with an intent to merit divine favor, apart from a deep awareness of one’s sinfulness (incapacity to do anything truly good, apart from God’s intervention). Works of men [people] are basically equivalent to the works of law (as he writes in chp. #3, “but the works of men are the works of the law”).

“Works of God” are the things God does in people to make them aware of their sin, and of the “ugliness” of their deeds (even those deeds they think are “good works”). These works “always seem unattractive and appear evil,” but are “really eternal merits” (chp. #4).

4. He subverts the Catholic distinction b/t “Venial sins” and “mortal sins”

In Catholic theology, venial sins are sins that can be forgiven by God via the act of penance. They are not as serious as mortal sins and may be committed unintentionally or without knowledge—by the sinner—of their sinful nature. Even if done intentionally (willfully) they can be forgiven by confession, though they do not necessarily need to be specifically addressed to be forgiven.

Mortal sins are “grave” (serious) sins, committed with full knowledge of their sinfulness, and with complete consent of the will; they lead to the consequence of damnation in hell if not repented of (specifically named) in this life and atoned for by penance. Mortal sins cut the sinner off from God’s grace, until such time (and if) repentance/penance/confession restores the relationship.

Luther destabilizes the distinction b/t venial and mortal sins, suggesting that the “works of man” (i.e. works done in obedience to the law) are “likely to be mortal sins” (#3).

5. For Luther, the criterion for determining a mortal sin vs. a venial sin lies at the “root” of the tree (the sinner): “Mortal sins…are those which seem good yet are essentially fruits of a bad root and a bad tree” (#5). The determining question is: How does a person view their “works” in relation to God’s holiness?6.

“Good deeds” (i.e. “works of men”) are actually “mortal sins” if they are considered good by the doers; that is, if they are not presumed by the sinner to be mortal sins “out of pious fear of God” (#7)

6. Luther is pointing out, somewhat wryly, that the biblical passages which admonish confession and repentance imply that the sins in question are mortal sins, not venial sins (since venial sins do not require confession and repentance). But the real point seems to be that the Catholic system of demarcation between mortal and venial sins may itself be the problem.

7. Luther says that pride is the root of all sin (#8) and that self-righteousness, which is only intensified by obedience to the law when fear of God is not present, is “mortal sin,” because it cuts a person off from God’s grace.

8. Luther aligns emphatically with Augustine against Pelagius, asserting that the will, because of the Fall, is only free to do evil (the will can only do evil in an “active” capacity, it can only do good in a “passive,” capacity—which amounts to really no good at all for Luther. see #14).

9. The result, for Luther, is that the Scholastic assumption that man can “obtain grace by doing what is in him” is dead wrong; in fact, the belief that one can obtain justification (righteousness) by “natural” means only makes one “doubly guilty” (#16)

10. So contra Pelagius and even contra semi-Augustianism (i.e. Aquinas), Luther does not believe that we can co-operate with God to achieve righteousness; which is to say, to be justified. Righteousness only comes via God’s work of changing the heart (restoring the root). Without that, even our cognition (intellect) is perverse (contra Aquinas’ belief in preservation of the intellect–rational capacity–from the deleterious effects of the Fall).

11. The “theologian of the cross” knows that the “invisible things of God” (virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, etc.) are hidden by the “visible things of God (human nature, weakness, foolishness”, and recognizes that true knowledge of God ultimately (paradoxically) comes through the visible (suffering, weak). The real truth of divine reality is hidden in and behind its (apparent) opposite.

12. We find the beginning of the justification doctrine at the conclusion of the Disputation (#25): Contra the Catholic Aristotelians, who believed that through habit one becomes holy/righteous, for Luther, it is the case that “works do not make him righteous, rather that his righteousness creates works. For grace and faith are infused without our works. After they have been imparted the works follow…. In other words, works contribute nothing to justification.”

Uncategorized

Catholic

Heidelberg Disputation

justification

Luther

Reformation

Previous Post

May 26, 2016

Your Inner World and the Lost Magic of "Chumship"

Next Post

June 2, 2016 The Only Compelling Response to the Problem of Evil is...?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2020 November 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 December 2018 July 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz