A Theological Essay by Lee Edward Enochs
"I am determined not to know anything amongst you but Jesus Christ
and Him Crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2).
The indelible sociological and ideological mark the famous and extraordinary Augustinian German monk and theologian Martin Luther launched during the climatic spiritual and revolutionary movement known as the 16th century Protestant Reformation is perhaps unparalleled in the annals of Western Civilization.[1] Luther’s singular dramatic and decisive stand for righteousness and doctrinal integrity against the systemic ethical and theological abuses and darkened degeneration of the monolithic hierarchy of medieval Catholicism irrevocably changed Western culture forever. Luther’s rediscovery of the biblical gospel of divine and unmerited grace had the dramatic impact of a bolt of blazing lightning across the blackened sky of the dystopia that had sadly become 16th century Roman Catholicism.[2] The ecclesiastical and spiritual situation had reach such a low ebb than even the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Luther’s day realized that many things had gone awry as evidenced by the attempt at church renewal in the Catholic Counter-Reformation movement.[3]
While Luther is widely known for his heroic nailing of the 95 Theses, the rediscovery of the essential and non-negotiable doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, namely the exclusive authority of the Bible alone, Justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone and the Priesthood of all believers in Jesus Christ, it is Luther’s “Theology of the Cross” (Latin: Theologia Crucis) that is perhaps his most profound spiritual and theological insight on the nature of Biblical revelation and our forensic soteriological standing before Almighty God. According to the Intervarsity Press Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, in Luther’s understanding of Theology of the Cross, “The true and consummate place of God’s self-revelation is in the humility, weakness and suffering love of God displayed in Christ’s glorious work of substitutionary atonement on the Cross of Calvary.”[4] Furthermore, F.R. Harm, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology describes the “Theology of the Cross” in the following erudite manner,
Martin Luther’s most profound contribution to theological thought. Five months after he nailed the ninety-five theses to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, Luther formulated the theologia crucis. Standing in opposition to the theology of glory”, the theology of the cross is best understood n concert with the Deus Absconditus (“the hidden God”) and the Deus Revelatus (“The revealed God”). Before the fall (lapsus) man was capable of knowing God directly or immediately. God was the Deus Relatus, who communed with man in the cool of Eden’s garden. The consequence of man’s fall into sin included much more than personal death and moral deterioration; it also changed man’s ability to know and commune with the Creator. The revealed God became the hidden God (Deus Absconditus). The only way the shattered fellowship can be restored was by means of redemption…God’s consummate meeting place was unveiled at the cross of Christ. God is known and understood not in strength but in weakness, not in awesome display of majesty and power but in the exhibition of a love willing to suffer in order to win man back to itself…God is ever and only known to man at the cross… With great insight Luther expostulated: Solus pradica Sapientium crucis. “The one thing preach, the wisdom of the cross.”[5]
Martin Luther’s most profound contribution to theological thought. Five months after he nailed the ninety-five theses to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, Luther formulated the theologia crucis. Standing in opposition to the theology of glory”, the theology of the cross is best understood n concert with the Deus Absconditus (“the hidden God”) and the Deus Revelatus (“The revealed God”). Before the fall (lapsus) man was capable of knowing God directly or immediately. God was the Deus Relatus, who communed with man in the cool of Eden’s garden. The consequence of man’s fall into sin included much more than personal death and moral deterioration; it also changed man’s ability to know and commune with the Creator. The revealed God became the hidden God (Deus Absconditus). The only way the shattered fellowship can be restored was by means of redemption…God’s consummate meeting place was unveiled at the cross of Christ. God is known and understood not in strength but in weakness, not in awesome display of majesty and power but in the exhibition of a love willing to suffer in order to win man back to itself…God is ever and only known to man at the cross… With great insight Luther expostulated: Solus pradica Sapientium crucis. “The one thing preach, the wisdom of the cross.”[5]
The purpose of this paper is to explore the embryonic development of Luther's doctrine of theologica crucis found in the 1518 Heidelberg Disputation of the Augustinian Eremites. The enormously positive contribution that Martin Luther’s “Theology of the Cross” has had on subsequent generations of historic Protestantism is incalculable as the Evangelical theological heirs of the Protestant Reformation in the five centuries since Luther’s spiritual revolution, have learned that “strength is perfected in weakness” and that God honors humility in his followers and utterly disdains pride and arrogance in true disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. As the Scriptures rightly say, “He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts” (Luke 1:51) and, “God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble” (1 Peter 5:5). Furthermore, Martin Luther’s view which he imparted to his followers which proclaims that God is known through the “foolishness and weakness," is the quintessential heart of Pauline soteriological theology and the very essence of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ itself as the Apostle Paul exclaims in 1 Corinthians 1:18-27,
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
Luther, argues for his “Theology of the Cross” in his famous Lectures on Romans when he writes,
So when we read in 1 Corinthians 1:25: “The weakness of God is stronger than men, and the foolishness of God is wiser than men,” this means that the weakness and foolishness of God are more powerful, stronger and wiser than the strength, power and wisdom of men. All this is said to be God’s, not because it is in him, but because it is in us coming from him. The foolishness and weakness of God are the same as the life according to the gospel by which God makes us appear foolish and weak before men, and this is our outer being. But the wisdom and power of God are the life according to the gospel and the very rule of the Christian life, by which he makes and reputes us wise and strong before himself, and this according to our inner being. Thus, there prevails here an alternative relationship: the foolishness and weakness of God before men are wisdom and power before God, and by contrast, the wisdom and power of the world are weakness, even death, before God.[6]
The first opportunity that Martin Luther had to expound on his “Theology of the Cross” was subsequent to his nailing of the 95 Thesis on the castle door at the University of Wittenberg during the tumultuous Heidelberg Disputation on April 26, 1518. In scholarly circles within the medieval universities of Luther’s day and age, it was common for students to engage in the art of disputation or public academic debate wherein the student would post the points of his thesis on the campus bulletin board in order to give his respective student peers and faculty members the opportunity to dispute his thesis. It also gave the student engaging in the defense of his thesis the opportunity to defend his thesis on his own in front of a jury of his peers and indigenous academic community. The Heidelberg Disputation was held before Luther’s Augustinian Eremite order and in that disputation, Luther defended 28 theological and 12 philosophical theses related to his theology of the cross and in this debate he also expounded on his view of the sinful depravity of man, the bondage of the will and the absolute and exclusive necessity of divine grace in the obtainment of personal salvation, entirely apart from the works of the Law.[7]
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
Luther, argues for his “Theology of the Cross” in his famous Lectures on Romans when he writes,
So when we read in 1 Corinthians 1:25: “The weakness of God is stronger than men, and the foolishness of God is wiser than men,” this means that the weakness and foolishness of God are more powerful, stronger and wiser than the strength, power and wisdom of men. All this is said to be God’s, not because it is in him, but because it is in us coming from him. The foolishness and weakness of God are the same as the life according to the gospel by which God makes us appear foolish and weak before men, and this is our outer being. But the wisdom and power of God are the life according to the gospel and the very rule of the Christian life, by which he makes and reputes us wise and strong before himself, and this according to our inner being. Thus, there prevails here an alternative relationship: the foolishness and weakness of God before men are wisdom and power before God, and by contrast, the wisdom and power of the world are weakness, even death, before God.[6]
The first opportunity that Martin Luther had to expound on his “Theology of the Cross” was subsequent to his nailing of the 95 Thesis on the castle door at the University of Wittenberg during the tumultuous Heidelberg Disputation on April 26, 1518. In scholarly circles within the medieval universities of Luther’s day and age, it was common for students to engage in the art of disputation or public academic debate wherein the student would post the points of his thesis on the campus bulletin board in order to give his respective student peers and faculty members the opportunity to dispute his thesis. It also gave the student engaging in the defense of his thesis the opportunity to defend his thesis on his own in front of a jury of his peers and indigenous academic community. The Heidelberg Disputation was held before Luther’s Augustinian Eremite order and in that disputation, Luther defended 28 theological and 12 philosophical theses related to his theology of the cross and in this debate he also expounded on his view of the sinful depravity of man, the bondage of the will and the absolute and exclusive necessity of divine grace in the obtainment of personal salvation, entirely apart from the works of the Law.[7]
The ideological presuppositions underlying the theological and philosophical positions Martin Luther delineated at the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518 were decidedly anti-scholastic and anti-Aristotelian in orientation and greatly belied Luther’s tremendous disdain of the use of reason and philosophical speculations in the formulation of Christian theology. Furthermore, Luther’s Augustinian soteriological views are clearly in display as Luther clearly expounded a dark view of human depravity and the bondage of the will. Martin Luther’s presentation at the Heidelberg Disputation argues for the absolute necessity of divine grace in the obtainment of salvation. At the Heidelberg Disputation, Luther entirely utilized an Augustinian view of salvation against the semi-Pelagianism of his debate opponents. Luther also decried the use of philosophical and scholastic reasoning in the formulation of sacred church doctrine as evidenced in the 28 theological and 12 philosophical theses Luther postulated and forcefully argued for during the Heidelberg Disputation. In his 28 theological theses (1-28) Luther argued,
The law of God the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him. Much less can human works, which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end. Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins. Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits. The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works which are apparently good), as though they were crimes. The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are thus not merits as though they were sinless. The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God. By so much more are the works of man mortal sins when they are done without fear and in unadulterated, evil self-security. To say that works without Christ are dead, but not mortal, appears to constitute a perilous surrender of the fear of God. Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin. Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work. In the sight of God sins are then truly venial when they are feared by men to be mortal. Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin. Free will, after the fall, has power to do good only in a passive capacity, but it can do evil in an evil capacity. Nor could the free will endure in a state of innocence, much less do good, in an active capacity, but only in a passive capacity. The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty. Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ. It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil.
A theologian of the cross calls the things what it actually is.. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded and hardened. The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ. Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner. He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ. The law says "Do this", and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in this" and everything is already done. Actually one should call the work of Christ an acting work and our work an accomplished work, and thus an accomplished work pleasing to God by the grace of the acting work. The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.[8]
In his 28 theological theses argued for at the Heidelberg Disputation, Martin Luther forcefully argued the necessity of divine grace in humanities quest for forgiveness and salvation in Jesus Christ. In this Disputation, Luther argued that man, because of the fall of Adam has been born enslaved to sin and that human will, in it’s original fallen state is bound and not free to choose righteousness and to follow after God. Luther agues here in the Heidelberg Disputation, that humanity has no power within ourselves to please God but only to sin exceedingly and often. Luther essentially argued here for the Protestant doctrine of “Forensic Justification” and the “Imputation of Christ’s righteousness,” wherein a lost and depraved sinner realizes that “salvation is not in himself”, rather the righteousness that God absolutely demands in us, is not obtained in attempting to keep the Law of God, that we cannot keep because of our utter sinfulness, but the perfect righteousness that God demands, is a perfect “alien righteousness” the very perfect righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Luther here argues that a person must, “Must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.” Luther argues here that salvation is extra nos, entirely outside of ourselves.
Luther declares here in the Heidelberg Disputation that the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to us, not on the basis of our imperfect obedience to the perfect law of liberty, but on account of God’s unmerited grace through our faith in Jesus Christ and His substitutionary atonement alone. Here in the Heidelberg Disputation, Luther argues for at least three of the five “Sola’s” of the Protestant Reformation, Sola Fide (By Faith Alone), Sola Gratia (By Grace Alone) and Solus Christus (By Christ Alone).
In Luther’s 12 philosophical theses at the Heidelberg Disputation (29-40) he argued;
He who wishes to philosophize by using Aristotle without danger to his soul must first become thoroughly foolish in Christ. Just as a person does not use the evil of passion well unless he is a married man, so no person philosophizes well unless he is a fool, that is, a Christian.. It was easy for Aristotle to believe that the world was eternal since he believed that the human soul was mortal. After the proposition that there are as many material forms as there are created things has been accepted, it was necessary to accept that they are all material.. Nothing in the world becomes something of necessity; nevertheless, that which comes forth from matter, again by necessity, comes into being according to nature.. If Aristotle would have recognized the absolute power of God, he would accordingly have maintained that it was impossible for matter to exist of itself alone. According to Aristotle, nothing is infinite with respect to action, yet with respect to power and matter, as many things as have been created are infinite. Aristotle wrongly finds fault with and derides the ideas of Plato, which actually are better than his own. The mathematical order of material things is ingeniously maintained by Pythagoras, but more ingenious is the interaction of ideas maintained by Plato. The disputation of Aristotle lashes out at Parmenides’ idea of oneness (if a Christian will pardon this) in a battle of air. If Anaxagoras posited infinity as to form, as it seems he did, he was the best of the philosophers, even if Aristotle was unwilling to acknowledge this. To Aristotle, privation, matter, form, movable, immovable, impulse, power, etc. seem to be the same.
Here Luther, staunchly attacked the Scholasticism argued for by the Augustinian Eremite brethren who disputed against his “Theology of the Cross” and absolutely rejected the integration of philosophy and Christian thought outright and in total and agreed with the Patristic Church Father Tertullian who repudiated the synthesis of Greek philosophy with Christianity when he said,
Whence spring those "fables and endless genealogies," and "unprofitable questions," and "words which spread like a cancer? " From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, "See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost." He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief.[9]
The Aftermath of the Heidelberg Disputation
Martin Luther’s nailing of the 95 Thesis against the practice of selling indulgences the previous October a tremendous and highly tumultuous uproar of unparalleled magnitude and proportions exploded throughout the church as clergymen and laymen throughout Europe heard of Luther’s bold stand against abuses within Roman Catholicism. When residing Pope Leo X heard of Luther’s stand and theological teachings he wanted to permanently silence Martin Luther and called upon his own Augustinian Eremite order at Wittenberg to renounce him and brand him a heretic and anathema to the Christian Church.[10] Father Johann Von Staupitz was given the responsibility by his Augustinian superiors to silence Martin Luther, however Staupitz did the very opposite and allowed Luther to expound on his theological discoveries back at the University of Wittenberg and in turn greatly influenced a handful of younger theologians including Martin Bucer, Johann Brenz, and Theobald Dillichanus subsequently spread Martin Luther’s “Theology of the Cross” and other revolutionary views on the authority of the Bible alone, Justification by grace through faith alone, the Priesthood of all believers and other important doctrines throughout Germany and soon the Protestant Reformation was born.[11] May Almighty God raise up a legion of new Martin Luther’s in our own day and give impetus for a new Reformation before the return of Jesus Christ when Almighty God rises to judge the earth.
The law of God the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him. Much less can human works, which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end. Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins. Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits. The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works which are apparently good), as though they were crimes. The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are thus not merits as though they were sinless. The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God. By so much more are the works of man mortal sins when they are done without fear and in unadulterated, evil self-security. To say that works without Christ are dead, but not mortal, appears to constitute a perilous surrender of the fear of God. Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin. Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work. In the sight of God sins are then truly venial when they are feared by men to be mortal. Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin. Free will, after the fall, has power to do good only in a passive capacity, but it can do evil in an evil capacity. Nor could the free will endure in a state of innocence, much less do good, in an active capacity, but only in a passive capacity. The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty. Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ. It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil.
A theologian of the cross calls the things what it actually is.. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded and hardened. The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ. Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner. He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ. The law says "Do this", and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in this" and everything is already done. Actually one should call the work of Christ an acting work and our work an accomplished work, and thus an accomplished work pleasing to God by the grace of the acting work. The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.[8]
In his 28 theological theses argued for at the Heidelberg Disputation, Martin Luther forcefully argued the necessity of divine grace in humanities quest for forgiveness and salvation in Jesus Christ. In this Disputation, Luther argued that man, because of the fall of Adam has been born enslaved to sin and that human will, in it’s original fallen state is bound and not free to choose righteousness and to follow after God. Luther agues here in the Heidelberg Disputation, that humanity has no power within ourselves to please God but only to sin exceedingly and often. Luther essentially argued here for the Protestant doctrine of “Forensic Justification” and the “Imputation of Christ’s righteousness,” wherein a lost and depraved sinner realizes that “salvation is not in himself”, rather the righteousness that God absolutely demands in us, is not obtained in attempting to keep the Law of God, that we cannot keep because of our utter sinfulness, but the perfect righteousness that God demands, is a perfect “alien righteousness” the very perfect righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Luther here argues that a person must, “Must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.” Luther argues here that salvation is extra nos, entirely outside of ourselves.
Luther declares here in the Heidelberg Disputation that the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to us, not on the basis of our imperfect obedience to the perfect law of liberty, but on account of God’s unmerited grace through our faith in Jesus Christ and His substitutionary atonement alone. Here in the Heidelberg Disputation, Luther argues for at least three of the five “Sola’s” of the Protestant Reformation, Sola Fide (By Faith Alone), Sola Gratia (By Grace Alone) and Solus Christus (By Christ Alone).
In Luther’s 12 philosophical theses at the Heidelberg Disputation (29-40) he argued;
He who wishes to philosophize by using Aristotle without danger to his soul must first become thoroughly foolish in Christ. Just as a person does not use the evil of passion well unless he is a married man, so no person philosophizes well unless he is a fool, that is, a Christian.. It was easy for Aristotle to believe that the world was eternal since he believed that the human soul was mortal. After the proposition that there are as many material forms as there are created things has been accepted, it was necessary to accept that they are all material.. Nothing in the world becomes something of necessity; nevertheless, that which comes forth from matter, again by necessity, comes into being according to nature.. If Aristotle would have recognized the absolute power of God, he would accordingly have maintained that it was impossible for matter to exist of itself alone. According to Aristotle, nothing is infinite with respect to action, yet with respect to power and matter, as many things as have been created are infinite. Aristotle wrongly finds fault with and derides the ideas of Plato, which actually are better than his own. The mathematical order of material things is ingeniously maintained by Pythagoras, but more ingenious is the interaction of ideas maintained by Plato. The disputation of Aristotle lashes out at Parmenides’ idea of oneness (if a Christian will pardon this) in a battle of air. If Anaxagoras posited infinity as to form, as it seems he did, he was the best of the philosophers, even if Aristotle was unwilling to acknowledge this. To Aristotle, privation, matter, form, movable, immovable, impulse, power, etc. seem to be the same.
Here Luther, staunchly attacked the Scholasticism argued for by the Augustinian Eremite brethren who disputed against his “Theology of the Cross” and absolutely rejected the integration of philosophy and Christian thought outright and in total and agreed with the Patristic Church Father Tertullian who repudiated the synthesis of Greek philosophy with Christianity when he said,
Whence spring those "fables and endless genealogies," and "unprofitable questions," and "words which spread like a cancer? " From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, "See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost." He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief.[9]
The Aftermath of the Heidelberg Disputation
Martin Luther’s nailing of the 95 Thesis against the practice of selling indulgences the previous October a tremendous and highly tumultuous uproar of unparalleled magnitude and proportions exploded throughout the church as clergymen and laymen throughout Europe heard of Luther’s bold stand against abuses within Roman Catholicism. When residing Pope Leo X heard of Luther’s stand and theological teachings he wanted to permanently silence Martin Luther and called upon his own Augustinian Eremite order at Wittenberg to renounce him and brand him a heretic and anathema to the Christian Church.[10] Father Johann Von Staupitz was given the responsibility by his Augustinian superiors to silence Martin Luther, however Staupitz did the very opposite and allowed Luther to expound on his theological discoveries back at the University of Wittenberg and in turn greatly influenced a handful of younger theologians including Martin Bucer, Johann Brenz, and Theobald Dillichanus subsequently spread Martin Luther’s “Theology of the Cross” and other revolutionary views on the authority of the Bible alone, Justification by grace through faith alone, the Priesthood of all believers and other important doctrines throughout Germany and soon the Protestant Reformation was born.[11] May Almighty God raise up a legion of new Martin Luther’s in our own day and give impetus for a new Reformation before the return of Jesus Christ when Almighty God rises to judge the earth.
[1] Luther Research Since 1920.by Harold John Grimm HJ Grimm - The Journal of Modern History, 1960 – JSTOR.
[2] Paul Althaus The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia, Fortress Press 1966).
[3] Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York : Atheneum, 1976).
[4] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, (Downer’s Grove Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1999). 113.
[5] F.R. Harm, Theologal Crucis, in The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Edited by Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Books, 1984). 1187.
[6] Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961) 19-20.
[7] Alister E McGrath Luther's theology of the cross : Martin Luther's theological breakthrough (Oxford, UK ; New York, NY, USA : B. Blackwell, 1985).
[8] Gerhard O Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans. 1997).
[9] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics:,Ante-Nicene Fathers: 10 Volumes by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace 1994).
