May Women Be Ordained As Pastors? DAVID P. SCAER . From "Marburg Revisited To "Princeton '72" EUGENE F. KLUG The Theses Of The Ratzeburg Conference To The "Leuenberg Concord TRANSLATION BY THE EDITOR Did The Patriarchs Know Yahweh? Or Exodus 6 : 3 And It's Relationship To The Four Documentary Hopothesis RAYMOND F. SURBURG Priest And Priesthood : Image Of Christ And His Church WILLIAM J. MEYER Lutheran AIusical Tradition In The Sacred Choral Works Of Brahms DANIEL G. REUNING Reason And The Two Kingdoms: An Essay In Luther's Thought STEVEN A. HEIN Theological Refractions Reason and The Two Kingdoms AIV ESSAY IN LUTHER'S THOUGHT Mr. Hein is candidate for the master of theology degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois INTRODUCTION As is very well knmvlz, Luther called reason a nasty, nasty ivord. Fwthivith the friends of reason have taken counsel together. Some have determined never to speak to the cad again. Some would iuash out his mouth with soap and demand an apology. Some zi7ould institute a libel suit. Others sigh at Luther's one-sidedness, bur urge that a reconciliation be icorked out, feeling that the two u~otlld make such a handsome c0uple.l T HE ABOVE tongue-in-check quip from Luther scholar, Robert H. Fischer, 1%-ell describes the attitudes of many theology and church history students who have been stung by Luther's strong and often-times crass denunciations of natural man's ability to use his head. Philosopher-Historian D. C. hlacintosh is convinced that Luther was an epistemological failure from the start. In Macintosh's work on the nature of religious knowledge, Luther gets put into the same camp as his "theological offspringu-Kierkegaard, Barth and Tillich-and then dismissed for perpetrating "reactiona? irration- alism."' Ernst Troeltsch was convinced that modern day Prot- estantism stemmed primarily from the Enlightenment instead of from the Reformation, partly due to the intellectual vacuum left by Luther and his fellow reformer^.^ John Wesley, although greatly influenced by Luther, was horrified nevertheless at Luther's denun- ciation of reason. "How does he . . . decry reason, right or wrong as an irreconcilable enemy of the Gospel?" said IVeslev after reading Luther's Galatians ~ommentary.~ Jacques Maritain's Three Reformers employs strong denunciations of Luther's attitude toward reason. His study relies much on the polemical treatments of Luther by his Cath- olic predecessors Denifle and Grisar. For hiaritain, Luther was a sort of "bull in the china closet," ruled not by intellect but "by his effec- tive and appetitive faculties."' Luther indeed had many "nasty" things to say about reason. In his often-quoted last sermon at Wittenberg in 1546, he had the fol- lowing to say on the subject: But the Devil's bride, reason, the lovely whore comes in and wants to be wise, and what she says, she thinks, is the Holy Spirit. Who can be of any help then? Keither jurist, physician, nor king, nor emperor; for she is the foremost whore the devil has. The other gross sins can be seen but nobody can control Reason And The Two Khtgdoms 139 reason . . . And what I say about the sin of lust which every- body understands, applys also to reason; for the reason mocks and affronts God in spiritual things and has in it more hideous harlotry than any harlot." On other occasions Luther refers to reason as a "beast," an "enemy of God and a "source of mischief." It is "carnal" and "stupid.": For Luther, reason at its worst was to be found in philos- o hy, most particularly that of Aristotle. Luther minces no words. Listotle is the "destroyer of pious doctrine," an "inventor of fables" and "the ungodly public enemy of the truth."s No doubt it is com- ments such as these above that have prompted many to consider Luther a poor source for theological enlightenment, much less of rational thought. Such is the evaluation of historian Norman Sykes: Defective education and limited learning made Luther ill-equipped to frame a new system of sound doctrine, nor did his polemics with the radicals "produce a state of intellectual calm suitable to the careful pondering of fundamental thee logical question^."^ Yet, Luther could praise reason, Aristotle and philosoph!- as well as condemn them. Concerning reason, Luther at times could refer to it as ". . . the most important and the highest in rank among all things and, in comparison with other things of this life, the best and something divine."1° Reason is the gift of God and stands above all of man's earthly blessings. It is the source and bearer of all culture. It has discovered all of the arts and sciences, law and medicine, and it rules over them. Ho~v do we account for these divergent evaluations from Luther concerning reason and philosophy? Can they be reconciled, or is Luther truly the irrational "bull in the china closet" that Rlaritain and others have charged? It is the purpose of this essay to show that Luther's attitude toward reason had its place, but that place mas not to be lord over theology and God's word. I. REASON AXD THE EARTHLY KIKGDOM One of the chief organizing principles in Luther's thought which often helps to explain its apparent inconsistencies is his doc- trine of the t\vo kingdoms (or governments). Recent Luther research has stressed the great unity of the reformer's thought, especially with reference to reason, when understood in this frame\\-ork." For Luther, God effects His will over the lives of men in two ways: through the earthly kingdom and through the spiritual kingdom. The earthly kingdom refers to that dimension of man's life wherebr he lives in society, is ruled and governed by the state, and makes decisions and choices of everyday life. The spiritual kingdom (inhabited onlv by true believers) is that spiritual dimension of life wherebv man lives in the Body of Christ, a forgiren sinner, showing forth Christ's lord- ship through good works motivated by love. It is within the context of the earthly kingdom that Luther views natural reason positively. He can even refer to the earthly kingdom as the "Kingdom of Human Reason." Luther is even ready to grant that man's natural powers remain largely uncorrupted by the Fall. Again it is simply a matter of making careful distinctions: "I make a difference between naturalia and spiritualia." The spiritualia (or spiritual endowments) are certainly corrupt, so that no man loves God or keeps His Law; but the ~zatzlralia (natural endowments) are sound." Alan has the ability and even the responsibility to conduct his earthly affairs according to reason. Reason, free will, and power are present even after the fall for man to conduct his household affairs, to handle the proper administration of government, and to perform other earthly tasks over which God has given him dominion. For Luther, reason has the rightful task of bringing order to society and developing this life. In "earthly government," the affairs of state, reason is to be exercised in its best possible fashion for pro- iiding a stable government and promoting civil righteousness. Reason shall be "the highest law and the master of all administration of La~v."'~ Luther was convinced that reason in natural man plus the natural law which is written in his heart are the means by which God in his creative \-ill holds society together. Holy Scripture and the Gospel are not to meddle in the affairs of government. In the areas of Iaw. government and the arts, theolo~ must bend its knee to rea- son and testify that it is God's creation." These things are a part of God's divine image in man from creation, so that he may rule over the earth, Reason is the majesty of this earthly life." Natural man is also able to know God to a certain extent through his own reasoning powers apart from revelation and faith. For Luther, Scripture establishes this beyond all doubt, and his ob- servation of the world's religions confirmed the Scriptural truth. The \arious pagan religions presuppose that men have within themselves a conceptual notion of God. Luther often would quote the religious views of Plato and Cicero in support of his position. In this regard, however, Luther made careful distinctions. He distinguished sharply between a general and a proper knowledge of God. By nature all men have the general knowledge that there is a God . . . Besides, the forms of worship and the religions that have been and remained among the nations are abundant evidence that at some time all men have had a general knowl- edge of God.'" General knowledge includes awareness that there is a God, that He created heaven and earth, and that He is just and punishes evil. Man knows there is a God, but is unable by reason to know how God is minded toward him. This can be known only through proper knowledge of God. Reason left to itself is unable to discover that God wants to save us from sin and in fact, has sent His Son to ac- complish this for Him.'; Proper knowledge comes only through Reason And The T~vo Kingdonzs 141 revelation, whereas general knowledge has been given to all men through creation. This general knowledge that there is a God cannot be eradicated from the heart. The Epicureans and other atheists hare tried to suppress it, but atheism is opposed by the secret voice of the conscience." Reason, for Luther, was also able to arrive at a "legal knowl- edge" of God. Reason can not only perceive that there is a God; it can know God's law and \\-ill for our general conduct. This is why Luther can boldly assert that reason alone is capable of governing the state, indeed the entire earthly kingdom. In this regard Luther says, "Reason can arrive at a 'legal knowledge' of God. It is con- versant with God's commandments and can distinguish between right and wrong. The philosophers, too, had this knowledge of God."'" Luther also makes the distinction between knon-ledge of the Law and knowledge of the Gospel. Reason can know the former but not the latter.?O Luther thought that the heathen had a superior and deeper knon-ledge of God through the Law than had many monks and priests in the church2' Legal knonledge and general knowledge of God are often spoken of by Luther as "left-handed knowledge" of God. The left-handed kno~vledge knows what God demands in terms of right and wrong behavior, but does not knoll- that man is lost to sin, under the judgement of God; it doesn't know the depths of God's merc17 and kindness in the Gospel. The Gospel is "right-handed knowledge" of God, and of this reason knows nothing. It is totall?- ignorant. For Luther, reason can- not know the depths of sin or the riches of the Gospel, but it can know and speak of Christ in an historical sense. This, however, is not saving faith. All Turks, Jews, papists, Tartars, and heathen concede the existence of a God, the Creator of heaven and earth, who, as they say makes life contingent on our observation of His commandments and prohibitions. The pope goes one step be- yond this and also speaks of Christ, but what he says is merely historical." 11. REASON AND THE SPIRITUAL RIKGDOM IYhereas the earthly kingdom is concerned with the affairs and probIems of civil righteousness, that is, righteousness and ap- proval before men, the spiritual kingdom is concerned with heavenly affairs and the matter of righteousness before God. In the sphere of kno~vledge that deals with how God is minded toward us, reason has no business and when Ieft to itself ends up in idolatry. It creates its own god fashioned after the deli1 and worships that instead of the true God. So reason plays blind man's bluff with God and always makes mistakes, and misses even- time, calling that God which is not God and again not callinb Him God who really is God. Reason would not do either if it did not know that God is, or if on the other hand it knew who or what He is . . . There- fore in trying so hard, reason gives God's name an honor to whatever it considers is God, but nemr finds him who is reall!- God, but al~vavs the devil or its own vanie which is ruled by the delil.?' - Alan's wisdom and reasoning, unenlightened by the Holy Spirit, is of the flesh, and because of this consigned to death with respect to ju~tification.'~ There is absolutely no doctrine or philosophy de- vised by man which is able to direct man toward the right path to God and make him righteous. Earthly wisdom can lead to good habits, but leaves him in bondage to the Old Adam.?; Carnal reason is in bondage; it believes that man is capable of pleasing God given enough time. Luther calls this notion . . . the height of wisdom, righteousness, and religion about which reason is able to judge; it is common to all the heathen, the papists, the Jen-s, the hlohammedans, and the sectarians. . . . They do not know the righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness.'" It was because the Roman Church had replaced the righteous- ness of faith with the righteousness of \\-orks that Luther revolted against scholasticism and the philosophy of AristotIe. Reason was meddling and interfering in the spiritual kingdom which is to be ruled solel!. by the Scriptures and the Gospel. When dealing with theology, reason and philosoph!- must take the back seat. The heart of the Scriptures is the Gospel of Christ and the Gospel is justifica- tion by faith alone through Christ. About this spiritual concern Lu- ther could say, "Here we are in an altogether different world-a world that is outside reason. . . . KO, here we are in divine theology where we hear the Gospel that Christ died for us. . . ."" Reason cannot grasp, in the final analysis, the miracle of for- giveness. Rather, it would seem more logical if grace were on a pay- as-you-go basis. To receive eternal life for nothing is totally against naturaI man's logic.'~ristotle and the schoIastic theologians held that reason was the supreme virtue in man and always "pleads for the best." Luther, again placing reason into its proper kingdom, qualified this statement, saving that "reason always pleads for the best in a mundane sense, that is, in things about which reason can judge. . . . in respect to the body of the flesh."2g In theology, how- ever, reason does not "plead for the best" because it is hostile to God and opposed to his will.2o Luther was unwilling to have rea- son act as judge over any article of faith or passage of Scripture. Where Scripture speaks, reason must keep silent. Where Scripture tells us that Christ is both human and divine, that there is a triune God, that Christ's body and blood are present in the Sacrament, that Baptism brings Christ's forgiveness, that we are saved by faith alone apart from works, reason must not be given even the smallest voice. Although Luther spoke out much against a magisterial use of reason in theological matters of the spiritual kingdom, he believed that reason could serve a useful task once it was "bathed by the Holy Spirit" and placed in a ministerial position to Scripture. Reason And The Two Kitzgdorns 143 Before we come to faith and the knowledge of God, our reason is darkness; in the believers, hon-ever, it is a most useful tool. . . . Faith then is aided by reason, rhetoric, and language which were such great obstacles before faith. Enlightened rea- son which is incorporated into faith receives gifts from faith. . . . Reason in godly men is something different since it does not fight with faith but rather aids it." Reason, however, may never stand in judgment of God's \ITord, although it may be an aid to understanding what Scripture says. Clearly Luther is here using ratio to refer to the thought processes, the means by which man organizes and makes inferences from n-hat is given. Logic may also be employed in a ministerial fashion, to demonstrate the validity of Scriptural truths. As Robert Preus ob- serves in his Theology of Post Reforii~ntiorz Lzrtherarlisnz : Luther too drew hundreds of syllogisms and conclusions from Scripture in his career and felt no compunction to justi- fy such a procedure. Luther is protesting against a Procrustean syllogizing that in the interests of logic does violence to the articles of faith, and especially against the scholastic ideal that the mysteries of faith can be presented in syllogistic form.'? Rome's appropriation of Aristotle amounted not only to works righteousness but also to a full-blown theologirz glorine in which logic and reason were masters over the mysteries of God. RIuch of Scholastic thought endeavored to deal with God in his essence apart from revelation. For Luther, our scope of kno~vledge concerning God is limited only to the Delis rerelatzrs, the revealed God who manifests himself in Christ and Scripture. In the place of a theologia gloriae where Natural Theology philosophizes about the hidden God, Luther put forth his theologia crzreis which centered the re- yealed God in Christ. In Luther's "Disputation Against Scholastic Theology," he strong- ly condemns Rome's magisterial use of reason as it attempts to use Aristotle to reach the hidden God (God in his essence of being). He condemned Aristotle's Ethica as one of the biggest corrupters of Christian truth. "A theoloe of glory calls evil good and good evil . . . That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded and hardened."33 Those who truly desire to know the true God must look to the apos- tolic testimon!. in Scripture. Those who are unwilling to begin with this testimony of the revealed God in Chirst will only find the devil.34 Reason must bow to this testimcny and may only be wed in its service. Natural reason leads only to legalism and idolap, but God's word leads to Christ, faith and eternal salvation. From our discussion thus far, it nlould appear that Luther's two kingdom motif consisted of two air-tight compartments with nothing but God's sovereign rule to bridge them. It seems evident that the natural knowledge of God plus logical reason would not qualify as a possible bridge as far as Luther is concerned. Natural reason when left to itself always went looking unsuccessfully for the delis abscolzditzis. In his monograph, Luther's Doctrine of the Two Kingdonzs, Heinrich Bornkamm stresses that, sociologicall~, it is the Christian who dynamically unites the earthly and spiritual kingdom. Born- kamm rightly asserts that Luther alwa! s stressed two things: (A.) that there are for the Christian two real and clearly separated sets of life-relationships; but (B.) that these "king- doms" are not rigidly fixed provinces into which the Christian's existence is divided. He cannot only live in one or the other. He must lire in both, and whether he will or not, he must con- tinually act in both. As a Christian he is to use the means of the one or the other "go~ernment" in order to carry out the will of God, which holds the world t~gether.:~ On one hand, there is the Christian's own personal existence; in this realm the spiritual government ruled by Scripture demands that he witness to the Gospel and endure suffering and abuse. On the other hand, there is the common life of mankind in general where civil law must set firm limits against evildoers. Here in the earthly king- dom, the Christian is to aid and support the civil government and see that no cne suffers injustice or falls victim to another. We hare seen how Luther's two kingdoms are bridged meta- physically by God's sovereignty, and sociologically by the life of the Christian. But, is there an epistemological bridge as well in Luther's thought, or does he create a dichotomy of an earthly realm where reason and proof operate and a spiritual realm where evidence has no place? Rlost modern students of Luther have given this impres- sion. Robert H. Fischer places Luther into Rant's phenomenal- noumenal dualistic framework. All insights of man's perceptive facul- ties "operate in what lvould later be called the phenomenal realm; they do not penetrate the n~umenal."~~udolph Otto agrees with Fischer, equating Luther's spiritual kingdom to Kant's noumenal real.?; Other scholars place Luther's revealed God in Christ into the "upper storr" ~irtually equating it with the hidden God. Accord- ing to Erich Seeberg, ". . . he deus abscolzditus becomes the deus revelatus. At the same time, the deus revelatus never loses its char- acter as dezrs absconditzls . . ."3S With this view Luther is depicted as a thorough-going fideist. Seeberg further explains: The concrete God in Christ is the hidden God, ~vho however is no more directly hidden, but is hidden in the con- crete and then revealed, insofar as we in bending under the cross believe in hin~.~~ Seeberg holds that Luther equates and interchanges spirituali5 and hiddenness." \Ve have seen from the previous discussion that, for Luther, the revealed God in Christ provides the proper starting point for a Reason And The Tuio Kingdoms 145 true knowledge of God; however, is Seeberg correct in his belief that for Luther, Christ is always hidden apart from the closed circle of belief? Luther must reply for himself: Therefore be on your guard against ideas that disregard the Il'ord and separate and tear Christ from God. For He did not bid you soar heavenward on your own and gape to see what God is doing in heaven with the angels. No, this is His com- mand (Matt. 1 7: 5) : "This is Sly beloved Son; listen to Him. There I descend to !ou on earth so that you can see, hear, and touch me. There and nowhere else is the place for those to encounter and find Ale who desire Me and who would like to be delivered from their sin and be sa~ed."~' Luther riel\-ed the humani~ of Christ as the bottoill of a lad- der that Ire must climb for true knowledge of God. IVhoever desires to rise to this kno~rledge must cast away metaphysical rules and first understand Christ as a man.4' Luther is very particular about where the revealed God can be found. Knowledge of the rerealed God begins at the bottom of a ladder with the man Jesus. If one be- gins at the top with a theology of glory, God will be forel-er hidden. For such a procedure amounts to beginning on top and building the roof before you have laid the foundation. There- fore, letting God do whatever He is doing, you must begin at the bottom and say: "I do not want to know God until I have first known this Man . . ."47 Beginning at the bottom (having put away all speculative thought and philosophy), Luther bids us examine Christ first as an infant, then his teachings and works during his public ministry, and then his death, resurrection and as~ension.~' Far from being a Kantian dualist, Luther maintained that Christ's divinity n-as fully evidenced in his miracles which were open to friend and enemy alike. Luther was very skeptical of human reason, but he n-as not so skeptical about Christ's ability to manifest full!- the divine to all people through his works. Luther makes himself clear on this point. Christ sa!s, "If my preaching does not make )ou willing to believe that God dwells and is in Me and that I dwell and am in Him. then belie\-e this because of the works you see before !-our eyes. These \\-orb, as no one can deny. are not human; they are divine. They prove and attest porn-erfullp enough that He speaks and works in Ale and through Ale." These are the works and miracles ~vhich He performed pubic- 1y before all the \\-orld-giving sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf-solely by the Il'ord. These are not only divine works, but they are also 11-itnesses of God the Father. There- fore he who sees and hears these, sees God the Father in them.:' Luther believed not only that Christ's miracles were po\r-erful public evidences of his diriniv but also that they confirmed his claim of the power to forgire sins. In this regard, Luther said that even though they [the Jen-s] declared that no one but God could forgive sin, still His n-orks stood before their eyes in testimony that He had this divine power and that He was the Man who could help man from death to life, against sin to righteousness, from strife to peace and every good.-" The fact that Christ died on the cross was proof of his humanity. In the very same fashion, without any secularjsacred, phenomenal/ noumenal or hiddenlrerealed dualisms, Luther can assert that Christ's resurrection bore witness to his divinity. Therefore when Christ says: "In three days I will raise it up," He proclaims that the death of His body lies within His power, that He can lay don-n His life and take it again at nil1 (John 10 : 18). Therefore He cannot be only man but must also be God. The fact that He is to be destroyed and die is proof of His humanity. But that He will rise again, that He n-ill raise Himself from death, bears witness to His divinity and to His divine pon-er to quicken the dead, for this is not the work of a human being. In this way Christ reveals His true divinity and humanity to the Jen-s.'" Luther does ilot contradict himself; human reason is totally incapable of knowing how Christ can be both human and divine. Luther sees a distinction between Christ providing evidence of His deity in the Incarnation, and man being able to understand such a m!.sterious union with his reason. But just as reason will not bring a man into the kingdom of God, neither n-ill a mere fides historicn.ji Alan must believe that Christ is 12is God and that He died for Izis sins. This is true faith which onl!- the Holy Spirit can n-ork in the hearts of men. A11 who enter into the spiritual kingdom must come one 11-ay: through Christ as Lord and Sarior. We have seen how, for Luther, reason is repulsed b!- a need for a savior. Satural man flees from the Gospel unless he first be humbled by the Law and only then be led to Christ, the revealed God who saves. FOOTXOTES 1. Robert H. Fischer, "A Reasonable Luther," Reformation Sttidies (Rich- mond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1962), p. 30. 2. D. C. Jiacintosh, The Problem of Religious Rnoluledge (Xew York: Harper and Brothers, 1940), p. 342. 3. See especially Benjamin A. Reist's comments in his surrey of Trocltsch's thought in his Toluard A Thcologv of Inl~olceinent (Philadelphia: The \Yestminister Prcss, 1966), pp. 20-25. 4. Philip S. Watson, Let God Be God-An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1947), p. 86. 5. Ja'ques Rlaritain, Three Reformers: Luther, Descartes, Rousseau (Sew York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932), p. 28. 6. D. Martin Luther IVerke, Vol. 5 1. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883- ), pp. 123-34, hereafter cited as WA; American Edition of Luther's Works, Vol. 51 (Philadelphia and St. Louis, 1955- ), p. 374, hereafter cited as LW. 7. WA 401. 362, 365, 275, 344. 8. WA 8. 127; 1. 611; 6. 186. 9. Norman Sikes, Crisis of the Reformation (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1950), pp. 3941, 48, as quoted in Robert Fischer, "A Reasonable Luther," p. 31. Reason And The Tivo Kingdoins 147 10. \\lA 391. 175; LW 34. 137. 11. See especially B. A. Gerrish's Grace and Reason (London: Oxford hi- versitv Press. 19 62 1. Heinrich Bornkamm's Luther's Doctrine of the TWO ~ingdoms (~hi1adel'~hia: Fortress Press, 1966), and F. E. Cranz's An Essay on the Development of Luther's Thought on Justice, La117 and Society (Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 19 69). 12. B. A. Gerrish, Grace and Reason, p. 13. 13. WA 11. 245-81; LW 45, 119. 11. "Here all law, sciences, economics and medicine are implanted and created Luther commenting on Gen. 1:27f . . . . These are the strength and the riches of the wisdom implanted in paradise. Holy Scripture therefore is not troubled by but rather approves the laws which have been established and the arts which have been discovered." \TI-4 40111. 222. 15. "It is the sun and a kind of god appointcd to administer thcse things in this life." WA 391. 175: L\V 34. 137. 16. \%-A 401. 607; LRT 26. 399. 17. "But what God thinks of us, what He wants to give and to do to delir-er us from sin and death to save us-which is the particular and true knowledge of God-this men do not know." \V-4 401. 608; LW 26. 399. 18. "There are people like the Epicureans, Pliny, and others who deny it with their mouths that there is a God. But they must force themselves to do so; and by trying to extinguish the light in their hearts they act like men who plug their ears and close their eyes so that they mag neither see nor hear. This does not solve their problem, however, for their con- science tells them something else." WA 19. 206. "This basic theol~gical 'insight of the conscience' is in ererv mind and cannot be obscured. \\'A 56. 177. 19. WA 46. 667f; W 22. 151. 20. "There are two kinds of knowledge of God: the one is the knowledge of the Law: the other is the knowledge of the Goswl. For God issued the La\\- and the Gospel that He might-be known tLough them. Reason is familiar with the knorrledge of God which is based on the Law . . . . for from the Law it saw the difference between right and wrong. The Lan- is also inscribed in our hearts . . ." WA 46. 672; LW 22. 150. 21. \VA 46. 667f; LW 22. 152. 22. WA 46. 672; L\tT 22. 153. 23. WA 19. 206f as quoted in George Forell's Faith Actire in Lo1.c (Sew Tork: The American Press, 1954), p. 118. 24. WA 391. 180; W 34. 144. 25. "For there is no doctrine whatever, be it secular or spiritual, philosophical or indeed of any kind at all devised by man, which is able to direct man in the right path and make him righteous. If indeed it brings him so far as to $?tabfish good habits, it yet leaves a man in bondage to the Old Adam. WA 57. Part 3; Luther: Early Theological Works, "Epistle to the Hebrews" (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1962), translated bv Tames Atkinson. D. 39. 26. \.vX 401. 60x~~i~~26: 396. 27. Ibid. 371; Ibid. 234. 28. "And so when reason hears: 'You can do nothing to obtain the remission of sins, but ought only to hear the Word of God,' it immediately cries out: 'No! I-ou make the forgi~-eness of sins too mean and contemptible.' So it is the very magnitude of the gift which prevents our accepting it; and because so great a treasure is offered for nothing, it is despised." Ibid. 343; Ibid. 213. 29. WA 42. 108; LW 1. 143. 30. Ibid.; Ibid. 31. WA Tischreden 3. 2938, hereafter cited as \VA TR, as quoted from Paul Althaus' The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 7 1. 32. R. Preus, The Theolog?, of Post-Reformation Lutheranism, p. 137. See also Luther's "Heidelberg Disputation," \VA 1. 353-74; LW 3 1. 259-92. 33. WA 1. 361; LW 31. 53. 34. "Therefore He in whom we believe must be the true God. God should not be sought or known except through the testimony; for to be unnilling to be content nith the manner in which God wants to be found by us but to seek and prescribe one's own manner is to find the devil, not God." WA 20. 787-88; L\V 30. 320. 35. Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther's Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms (Phila- delphia: Fortress Press, 1960), pp. 8-9. For another thorough discus- sion of Luther's thought concerning the Christian's responsibility in both kingdoms, see Luther's treatise "Temporal Authority: To \%%at Exqent It Should Be Obeyed (\VA 11. 245-81; LW 45. 81-129) and also George Forell's Faith Active in Lore. 36. Robert Fischer, "-4 Reasonable Luther," p. 39. 37. John Dillenberger, God Hidden and Rerealed (Philadelphia: 3Iuhlenberg Press, 1953), p. 73. 38. Ibid., p. 52. 39. Ibid., p. 53. 40. Ibid., p. 51. 41. WA 45. 520; LW 24. 65. 42. W.A 57. '7. "Epistle to the Hebrews" translated by James Atkinson, pp. 31-32. "Sow the .Apostle's procedure must be very carefully noted. First he declares the humanity of Christ and then proceeds to His divinity. As a consequence, he establishes that principle by which true knomledge of God may be found. For the humanity is that holy ladder set for us. It is on the rungs of this ladder we rise to a knoxvledge of God . . . . Therefore n-hoever wishes to rise to a true lo\-e of God and knowledge of God, let him put away all the human and metaphysical rules on how to attain to the knoxvledge of God, and as his first task let him seek to understand the huxanitv of Christ." 43. \Vdl 36. 61f, as cited in John Warwick hlontgomery's essay "The .Apologetic Thrust of Lutheran Theoiogy," The Lutheran Synod Quarterly, XI, (1970), p. 28. 14. "It bids us climb up by Jacob's ladder; God Himself leans on it, and its feet touch the earth, right by Jacob's head (Gen. 28:12). Therefore whenever you are concerned to think and act about your salvation, you must put away all speculations about the Majesty, all thoughts of ~rorks, traditions, and philosophy-indeed, of the Larv of God itself. And you must run directly to the manger and the mother's womb, embrace this Infant and Virgin's Child in your arms, and look at Him-born, being nursed, growing up, going about in human society, teaching, dying, rising again, ascending above all the heavens, and having authority over all things. In this wav you can shake off all terrors and errors, as the sun dispels the clouds. This vision n-ill keep you on the proper way, so that you may follow n-here Christ has gone. WA 401. 80; LIV 26. 30. 45. Ibid., Ibid., p. 74. 46. WA 46. 538-789; L\tr 22. 247. Luther also believed that miracles con- firmed the inspirational authority of the apostles. "This doctrine has been confirmed by miracles and signs from heaven. Therefore when they say that they must have spoken by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you must ask them to prove this with true and genuine miracles. True miracles are rising from the dead, giving sight to people who hare been born blind, etc." WA 20. 748; LW 30. 279. 47. "But the fact that you, like the Turks, the Jews and the Devil believe that God created all things-this is not the knowledge of God. Xor is this knon~ledge, your belief that Christ was born from a virgin, suffered, died and rose again. No, you have the true knomledge of God when you believe and know that God and Christ are your God and your Christ. This the devil and false Christians cannot believe." WA 14. 16; L\V 30. 152.