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

12 Notes on Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Heidelberg Disputation) May 31, 2016

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
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.”


Browse Our Archives