The Substance of the Faith: Luther's Doctrinal Theology for Today - with Dennis Bielfeldt and Paul R. Hinlicky (original) (raw)
Related papers
'Old questions, new answers? Luther and the problem of catholicity'
Reformation 17 (2012), 161-76
Luther's omission of the word 'catholic' from his German translations of the creedal article on the Church have led many to suppose that he had little time for the concept of catholicity. A survey of vernacular devotional literature on the eve of the Reformation shows however that he was merely respecting traditional translation practice, and a study of his polemical writings in 1518-19 demonstrates that a strong concept of catholicity underpinned his critique of the Roman Church.
The Gospel Luther’s Linchpin for Catholicity
Concordia journal, 2013
responded, "we are not catholic! That's why Luther changed the phrase of the creed to holy Christian Church." These reactions point to the need to explore again how Luther defined and used the words catholic and Christian within the context of his understanding of ecclesiology and its apostolic task. Some Lutherans might suggest an even bolder approach and heed the advice of James Atkinson. He suggested that it is now time to set Luther free from all the confessional Lutheranism that has accrued around him, and "set him in the centre of a new catholicity, where he once belonged and still belongs." 7 Would, and could, Lutherans dare take up this challenge? Before making such a decision, it would be helpful to explore how the word catholic was used in the period before the reformation, and how Luther himself used it in shaping his theology and developing his ecclesiology. The starting point is to look at how the word catholic was translated and used in the period immediately prior to the beginnings of the reformation. Matters of Language: Catholic or Christian? The common perception today asserts that Luther set about with clarity of purpose, almost from the outset, his task of promoting the gospel over the Catholic Church. The opposition he encountered in the first years of the reformation struggle merely strengthened his resolve. He was warned at Augsburg by Cardinal Cajetan in the fall of 1518 that his views on justifying faith amounted to "creating a new church." Further, when forced by his opponent Johann Eck at the Leipzig disputation in 1519 into admitting his belief that Jan Huss (†1415) was no heretic, Luther knew that he was firmly beyond the Catholic pale even before the papal condemnations started arriving on his desk. Any residual desire he might have had to claim the title Catholic in his attempts to restore the church to its original calling was finally abandoned when he translated the creeds into German, removing the word catholic as a defining adjective of the church. This is the common perception of Luther's view. This perception is partially correct. Luther did indeed delete catholic as a descriptor and definer of the church in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and substituted, in its place, the word Christian. Furthermore, he was entirely consistent in this substitution-which is in itself remarkable because unwavering consistency is not a characteristic one normally associates with Luther. One must therefore assume that replacing catholic with Christian in his translation of the creedal formulas into German was a deliberate decision on his part. Luther never gives a theological explanation for this translation, other than to claim that it was the best translation available. As he notes in his 1538 treatise on The Three Creeds: "[Catholic (Catholica)] can have no better translation than Christian (Christlich) as was done heretofore. That is, although Christians are to be found in the whole world, the pope rages against that and wants to have his court alone called the Christian Church. He lies, however, like his idol, the devil." 8 Here 2
has set out to reintroduce Martin Luther and his theology to evangelical Christians in the twenty-first century. Consequently, Luther for Evangelicals is not an act of Luther-interpretation per se. Rather, it is a self-conscious exercise in theological hermeneutics with the specific goal of tendering an account of Luther's theology that is relevant and accessible to Anglophone evangelicals. Moreover, the book is designed to push readers into a sustained and firsthand interaction with Luther's writings themselves. Structurally, the book is divided into two parts, the first of which-"Luther in Evangelical Perspective"-introduces Luther's theology from the vantage of four major preoccupations in contemporary evangelicalism: the new birth, the Bible, evangelization, and the atonement.
Religious Studies Review, 2010
an evolutionary biologist, speaks on behalf of warfare. The claims of science and religion conflict with one another and the battle has long since been won by scientists. M. Rudge, a History and Philosophy of Science professor and an agnostic, affirms independence instead, noting that the proper spheres of science and religion seldom overlap. The Rev. H. Wallace, pastor of a Southern Baptist megachurch, affirms dialogue between science and religion. (As he is a young-earth creationist who disparages all talk of evolution, however, his sincerity is repeatedly called into question.) Finally, the Rev. E. Matthews, an Episcopalian priest and process theologian, affirms integration, endorsing a holistic approach to both science and religion. Rife with historical and scientific facts, as well as useful philosophical distinctions, this book is sure to be a valuable tool in the classroom. Those who hold more conventional scientific views and also embrace relatively orthodox theism (i.e., the common core of the Abrahamic traditions) will not, however, find themselves represented in this discussion. This is surely a shortcoming.