No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Luther's ‘Scholastic Phase’ Revisited: Grace, Works, and Merit in the Earliest Extant Sermons
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
By 1516 Luther charged that the Schoolmen had grotesquely inflated the significance of natural virtues. Thereafter, he increasingly was provoked by the suggestion that human effort—touched only lightly, if at all, by grace—could accomplish more healing than harm. But it is commonly supposed that opinions Luther then condemned were opinions he had condoned in his earliest works, in which he is said to have assumed God's willingness to accept the best efforts of sinful persons as virtuous preparation for grace. Certainly Luther's ambitious remarks about partial merit (mentum de congruo), which found their way into his marginal notes on Lombard's Sentences (1509–1510) and into his Dictata super Psalterium (1513–1515), contrast with his later repudiation of the “sufficiencies” of natural powers for moral achievement and of moral achievement for divine acceptance and reward. Luther himself conceded his schoolboy admiration for Ockham, who probably inspired the semipelagianism of much of the late medieval soteriology that Luther came to detest. Understandably, Luther's early apparent endorsements of semipelagian features of scholastic soteriology have attracted considerable scholarly attention. His passage from nominalism to Protestantism, choreographed variously with leaps and stumbles or as an orderly march, has been a topic for debate ever since new fragments of Luther's early theology surfaced and were pieced together in the nineteenth century. Yet two early sermons have generated comparatively little discussion. Copied together from a manuscript in Erfurt and published twice before 1900, they are clearly witnesses from Luther's early career and their contribution to the determination and evaluation of his early semipelagianism ought not to be undervalued.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Church History 1982
References
1. See Degering, Hermann, ed., Luthers Randbemerkungen in Gabriel Biels ‘Collectorium in quattuor libros sententiarum’ und zu dessen ‘Sacri canonis missae expositio’ (Weimar, 1933);Google Scholar and Luther's Romerbrief in Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar, 1883–), especially 56:355.14–26 and 503.1–7Google Scholar (hereafter cited as WA). Also consult Leif Grane's discussions of the Randbemerkungen and Romerbrief respectively in Grane, Leif, Contra Gabrielem: Luthers Auseinandersetzunzg mit Gabriel Biel in der “Disputatio contra scholasticam theologiam” (Glydendal, 1962), pp. 348–368;Google Scholar and in idem, Modus Loquendi Theologicus: Luthers Kampf um die Erneurung der Theologie, 1515–1518 (Leiden, 1975), pp. 94–100.
2. See especially Oberman, Heiko A., “Facientibus quod in se est non denegat gratiam: Robert Holcot O.P. and the Beginnings of Luther's Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962):332–333, 341–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar But also note Vignaux, Paul, Luther, commentateur des Sentences (Paris, 1935);Google Scholar and idem, “Sur Luther et Ockham,” Franziskanzische Studien 32 (1950):21–30, as well as the more familiar discussions of Luther's nominalism in Scheel, Otto, Martin Luther, Vom Katholizismus zur Reformation, 2 vols. (Tübingen, 1923), 2:161–203.Google Scholar
3. In the Dictata, see WA 4:261.34–35, 262.14–15, and 312.38–41. In Luther's remarks on theSentences, see WA 9:72.19.
4. WA 6:195.4–5, 6:600.11, 39.1:420.27, and WA, Tischreden 2:516.6–7. For brief accounts of Erfurt Ockhamism, see Meier, Ludger, “Research… on the Ockhamism of Martin Luther at Erfurt,” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 43 (1950):56–67;Google Scholar and Iserloh, Erwin, “Luthers Stellung in der theologischen Tradition,” in Wandlungen des Lutherbildes, ed. Foster, Karl (Wurzburg, 1966), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar Luther's 1545 account of his discovery of the real meaning of justitia dei (WA 54:185.12–186.29) suggests that he once held and then suddenly abandoned his early teachers’ positions on justification. The reliability of the 1545 reminiscence, however, has long been suspect. See Otto Pesch, H., “Sur Frage nach Luthers reformatorische Wende,” Catholica 20 (1966):269–271,Google Scholar reprinted in Der Durchbrusch der Reformatorischen Erkenntnis bei Luther, ed. Bernhard Lohse (Darmstadt, 1968), pp. 490–493Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Durchbruch).
5. For a summary of nineteenth-century discoveries and their impact on interpretation, consult Jundt, André, La dévelopement de la pensée réligieuse de Luther jusqu'en 1517 (Paris, 1905), pp. 6–22.Google Scholar For other directions in the study of Luther's passage, see the selections in Durchbruch by Denifle, Grisar, Bornkamm, Pesch, and Oberman; the review essay, Muller, Gerhard, “Neuere Literatur sur Theologie des jungen Luther,” Kerygma und Dogma 11 (1965):325–357;Google Scholar and the Forschungsbericht in Grane, , Contra Gabrielem, pp. 20–42.Google Scholar
6. For these two sermons, see WA 4:590–604; and Luthers Werke in Auswahl 5 (Berlin, 1933):20–37.Google Scholar
7. Vogelsang, Erich, “Zur Datierung der Fruhesten Lutherpredigten,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 50 (1931): 112–114.Google Scholar Also note Kiessling, Elmer Carl, The Early Sermons of Luther and Their Relation to the Pre-Reformation Sermon (Grand Rapids, 1935), pp. 68–78.Google Scholar
8. Bluhm, H. S., “The Significance of Luther's Earliest Extant Sermon,” Harvard Theological Review 37 (1944): 181–184;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWeijenborg, Reynold, “La Charité dans la première théologie de Luther,” Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 49 (1950):636–637, 642–643.Google Scholar
9. See Grane, , Contra Gabrielem, pp. 281–282;Google Scholar and Ozment, Steven E., Homo Spiritualis (Leiden, 1969), pp. 161–162.Google Scholar
10. Compare WA 4:588.
11. See WA 4:269.25–27.
12. Wicks, Jared, Man Yearning for Grace (Wiesbaden, 1969), p. 304, n. 31.Google Scholar For a synopsis of moderate nominalist positions, consult Courtenay, William J., “Nominalism and Late Medieval Religion,” in The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion, ed. Trinkaus, Charles and Oberman, Heiko A. (Leiden, 1974), pp. 36–51.Google Scholar
13. WA 4:591.15–21.
14. WA 4:592.14–15 and 592.36–593.3.
15. WA 4:594.15–16.
16. WA 4:596.34–597.6.
17. WA 4:600.38–601.6.
18. “Sed ecce, nos omnia pervertimus: tanta et tam maxima dona Dei (quis non terreatur et horreat?) in pluribus sunt frustra quam utilia. In majore autem numero ista tria et quodlibet illorum seorsum vertitur nobis in damnum pro usu, in coecitatem pro instructione, in malitiam pro affectione. Magna haec est miseria. Sicut enim de Domino dictum est ‘positus est hic in ruinam et resurrectionem multorum in Israel’: ita de quolibet illorum trium intelligi potest” (WA 4:601.26–32).
19. WA 4:593.4–16.
20. WA 4:604.8–9.
21. WA 4:602.20–603.3.
22. See WA 9:29.1–6, where Luther applauded Peter Lombard's reliance on Augustine. Also see Luther's 1509 notes on Augustine's works (WA 9:5–27). Jundt, , La Développement de la pensée réligieuse, pp. 105–109,Google Scholar alluded to the conflict between Luther's early Augustinianism and his alleged semipelagianism; but also consult Lohse, Bernhardt, “Die Bedeutung Augustins für den jungen Luther,” Kerygma und Dogma 11 (1965): 133.Google Scholar And, on Luther's Augustinianism and the late medieval antipelagian Augustinianism of Gregory of Rimini, see Beintker, Horst, “Neues Material über die Beziehungen Luthers zum mittelalterlichen Augustinismus,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 68 (1957): 144–148;Google Scholar but see especially Steinmetz, David C., “Luther and the Late Medieval Augustinians: Another Look,” Concordia Theological Monthly 44 (1973): 127–128.Google Scholar
23. Vogelsang, , “Zur Datierung,” p. 115.Google Scholar
24. See Elze, Martin, “Züge spätmittelalterlicher Frömmigkeit in Luthers Theologie,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 62 (1965):400–401,Google Scholar for consideration of Luther's alleged “Erneuerung der Theologie aus dem Geiste der Frömmigkeit.”
25. Douglass, E. J. Dempsey, Justification in Late Medieval Preaching: A Study of John Geiler of Keisersberg (Leiden, 1966), p. 177.Google Scholar
26. Lohse, , “Die Bedeutung Augustins,” pp. 127–128.Google Scholar
27. Biel, Gabriel, Collectorium circa quattuor libros Sententiarum, ed. Werbeck, Wilfridus and Hofmann, Udo, 4 vols. (Tübingen, 1973-1979), vol. 1, p.7, 11. 41–43Google Scholar (“Praefatio”).
28. On the early acquisition, see Stegmüller, Friedrick, “Literargeschichtliches zu Gabriel Biel,” in Theologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Auer, Johann and Volk, Hermann (Munich, 1957), p. 316.Google Scholar On Biel's soteriology, see Oberman, Heiko A., The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge, 1963), notably pp. 135–140;Google Scholar but also review, among attempts to “restore” the primacy of God's saving grace to Biel's presentation of the initium salutis, Clark, Francis, “A New Appraisal of Late Medieval Theology,” Gregorianum 46 (1965):739–757;Google Scholar and Ernst, Wilhelm, Gott und Mensch am Vorabend der Reformation (Leipzig, 1972), especially pp. 320–334.Google Scholar
29. Grane, , Contra Gabrielem, p. 156.Google Scholar
30. Ibid., p. 162.
31. WA 1:228.22–25.
32. See Bornkamm, Heinrich, “Sur Frage der Justitia Dei beim jungen Luther,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 52 (1961): 16–29 and 53 (1962): 1–60;Google Scholar but also note Peters, Albrecht, “Luthers Turmerlebris,” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 3 (1961):203–236,Google Scholar for an excellent example of the predilection for turning points (Umbrüche) challenged by Bornkamm.
33. WA 4:309.7–11.
34. Lohse, Consult, “Die Bedeutung Augustins,” pp. 124, 134–135.Google Scholar
35. WA 4:569.9–11 and 599.36–38.
36. WA 9:42.35–43.25.
37. WA 4:596.12–16.
38. WA 4:591.31–32.
39. In the second sermon, “datum est nobis facere; quicquid volumus” (WA 4:604.8–9).
40. General assistance could have been construed as concursus or influentia generalis, that is, as the auxilium dei required for every human effort. See Oberman, Harvest, pp. 210–211.
41. “When forced to make a choice, the Augustinians tended to stress the personal relationship to God which is established in grace rather than to accent the more abstract notion of grace as a habitus. The Augustinians wish to stress gratia increata, grace as the personal presence of the Spirit, even when they do not give up the idea of grace as gratia creata…” (Steinmetz, , “Luther and the Late Medieval Augustinians,” p. 252).Google Scholar However, Weijenborg, , “La Charité,” pp. 633–634,Google Scholar makes too much of Luther's brief mention of dilectio creata (WA 9:43.1) in his own discussion of Luther's purported Ockhamism. Compare Vignaux, Paul, Luther: Commentateru des Sentences (Paris, 1935), p. 42.Google Scholar
42. WA 9:71.34–40 and 72.29–31. Also consult Schwarz, Reinhard, Fides, Spes, und Caritas beim jungen Luther (Berlin, 1962), pp. 32–40;Google ScholarSchupp, Johann, Die Gnadenlehre des Petrus Lombardus (Freiburg, 1932), pp. 231–242;Google Scholar and Grane, , Contra Gabrielem, p. 305.Google Scholar
43. WA 4:604.1–14. Also note WA 4:601.8–9, 602.10–14; and compare Weijenborg, , “La Charité,” p. 655,Google Scholar on collaboration and “l'inutilité des oeuvres extérieures” in the second sermon with Seils, Martin, Der Gedanke vom Zusammenwirken Gottes und des Menschen in Luthers Theologie (Gütersloh, 1962), pp. 29–31.Google Scholar
44. WA 4:596.12–16.
45. WA 9:31–37 and 38.28–37. Also consult Strohl, Henri, Luther jusqu'en 1520 (Paris, 1962), pp. 157–162.Google Scholar
46. See WA 4:241.8–36.
47. Some notice of the genesis of this observation in Luther's early (1509) christology may be found in Hirsch, Emmanuel, “Initium Theologiae Lutheri,” in Lutherstudien, 2 vols. (Gütersloh, 1954), 2:32–34Google Scholar (reprinted in Durchbruch, pp. 92–94). This paper was originally published in 1920, nearly ten years before his student's study of the christology of the Dictata and of the concept “opus dei.” Consult Vogelsang, Erich, Die Anfänge von Luthers Christologie nach der ersten Psalmenvorlesung (Berlin, 1929), especially pp. 52–55.Google Scholar Also note Ebeling, Gerhard, Lutherstudien, 2 vols. (Tübingen, 1971-1977), 1:66–67.Google Scholar
48. WA 4:388.17–20 and 594.11–16. In this instance, in the Dictata (“Quare ista expectatio necessario includit contemptum omnium temporalium bonorum et malorum”), hope seems to require a prevenient renunciation of self-righteousness. The formulation would then be similar to that commonly ascribed to Luther's early theologia humilitatis. See Pfeiffer, Gerhard, “Das Ringen des jungen Luther um die Gerechtigkeit Gottes,” Luther Jahrbuch 26 (1959):52–53Google Scholar (reprinted in Durchbruch, pp. 200–201). And the sense that self-accusation and death to the world must be achieved before divine righteousness overtakes the Christian compares favorably with Biel's notion that preparatory effort may earn divine grace. But Luther had made quite clear earlier in the Dictata that the acknowledgment of sin and contrition were works of God, not those of meritorious Christians. WA 4:171.3–16.
49. See Vignaux, , Luther, Commentateur des Sentences, pp. 87–88;Google Scholar and Kaufman, Peter, “Charitas non est nisi a Spiritu sancto: Augustine and Peter Lombard on Grace and Personal Righteousness,” Augustiniana 30 (1980):209–220.Google Scholar
50. Even as dispositions and habits are cultivated in the human will, they are, for Luther, monumental signs of God's work in the individual. “Quia omnium potentiarum actus et habitus per charitatem gratificantur, quae sola est virtus et omnes alias faciat virtutes” (WA 9:90.31–34). Also see Seeberg, Reinhold, Die religiösen Grundgedanken des jungen Luther und ihr Verhältnis zu dem Ockamismus und der deutschen Mystik (Berlin, 1931), pp. 22–23,Google Scholar on Luther's avoidance of gratia habitualis and gratia creata; and Schwarz, , Fides, Spes, und Caritas, pp. 198–199,Google Scholar on Luther's alternative to the schoolmen's “graces.”
51. “Quo motivo? propter nimiam charitatem, non propter nostram bonitatem, cum simus mali et solus Deus bonus: nec meritis nostris, quae non sunt” (WA 4:596.9–11).