We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
The breakup of Western Christendom in the sixteenth century gained momentum when an academic theologian called into question the theology of the church in his day. Martin Luther wanted to discuss theology when he posted his Ninety-five Theses in 1517. In the ensuing years, Luther and the “Lutherans” were forced to forge their theology in the heat of an intensely polemical and conflict-ridden environment. They responded to the theological issues raised by their opponents, as well as to the real pastoral concerns of the emerging evangelical church in Protestant lands.
1. Until the forthcoming new edition of The Book of Concord [BC] (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press) is published, the current most available English critical edition is The Book of Concord, ed. Tappert, Theodore (Minneapolis, Minn., 1959).Google ScholarIn addition, the venerable three-language Concordia Triglotta, ed. Bente, F. (St. Louis, Mo., 1921) remains a helpful resource. For a compelling treatment of the continuing importance of Luther's theology for the modern world,Google Scholarsee Luther, Martin, Theologian of the Church: Collected Essays by George Forell, ed. Russell, William R. (St. Paul, Minn., 1994).Google Scholar
2. Hereafter SA. The quotations from SA throughout this article are from The Schmalkald Articles by Luther, Martin, ed. and trans. Russell, William R. (Minneapolis, Minn., 1995). This translation will be incorporated into the new edition of BC. Citations are made by referring to “parts,’ “articles,’ and “verses’ in arabic numerals separated by periods.Google Scholar
3. Telling evidence of the lack of scholarly attention given to the Schmalkald Articles is that the only book-length explication of SA in English is my forthcoming Luther's Theological Testament: The Schmalkald Articles (Minneapolis, Minn., 1995). This is in contrast to the numerous studies devoted to each of the other Lutheran confessional writings, except the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.Google Scholar
4. This council was to meet at Mantua, Italy, the following spring, but did not meet until 1545, and then at Trent.Google Scholar
5. SA Preface, 3.Google Scholar
6. SA 3.15.3. These words are out of place in the context of this article. It is possible that Luther originally meant these words to be part of an extended subscription, but they were inadvertently separated from his signature. The 1580 Book of Concord suggested a break in Luther's train of thought here when it began this paragraph with an ornamental initial. The original 1538 publication of SA made use of a similar device. The Tappert edition places an extra space between these sentences and what precedes them.Google Scholar
7. See my article, “Philip Melanchthon's Subscription to Luther's Schmalkald Articles: Deviance or Conformity?’ forthcoming in the Sixteenth Century Journal.Google Scholar
8. Volz, Han, ed., Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte von Martin Luthers Schmalkaldischen Artikeln (Berlin, 1957), p. 84.Google Scholar
9. The three parts of SA correspond roughly to the three articles of the creed: part 1 deals with God's creation of heaven and earth, part 2 deals with God the Son's redeeming work, and part 3 deals with God the Spirit's activity in the church.Google Scholar
10. SA 1, title.Google Scholar
11. SA 1.4.Google Scholar
12. These titles are not Luther's. They were provided by Tappert in BC.Google Scholar
13. This analysis is based on both Die Bekenntnisschriften der evang.-lutherischen Kirche (Göttingen, Germany, 1986)Google Scholarand Werke, D. Martin Luthers: Kritische Gesamtausgabe [WA] (Weimar, Germany, 1883-), vol. 50.Google Scholar
14. The Tappert edition of BC does not indicate this, but rather has edited the title that Luther gave SA 2.1 into the text itself and supplied titles for the four articles of SA 2.Google Scholar
15. SA 2.1.4.Google Scholar
16. Increasing scholarly attention to the “older Luther’ has shed new light on the last fifteen years of the reformer's life and revised the characterization of Luther in his last years as bitter, disappointed, and perhaps even demented. See Edwards, Mark, Luther's Last Battles (Ithaca, N.Y., 1983);Google ScholarKittelson, James, Luther the Reformer (Minneapolis, Minn., 1986);Google ScholarOberman, Heiko, “Teufelsdreck: Eschatology and Scatology in the ‘ld’ Luther,’ Sixteenth Century Journal 19(1988): pp. 435–450;CrossRefGoogle ScholarOberman, Heiko, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (New Haven, Conn., 1989);Google Scholarvon Loewenich, Walther, Martin Luther: The Man and His Work (Minneapolis, Minn., 1986);Google Scholarand Wohlgast, Eike, Die Wittenberger Theologie und die Politik der evangelischen Stände: Studien zu Luthers Gutachten in politischen Fragen (Gütersloh, Germany, 1977).Google ScholarStill useful is the venerable study by Kostlin, J. and Kawerau, G., Martin Luther: Sein Leben und seine Schriften, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1903).Google Scholar
17. SA 2.1.5.Google Scholar
18. The question regarding the continuing validity of these kinds of condemnations has recently been discussed in contemporary ecumenical circles. The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?, ed. Lehmann, Karl and Pannenberg, Wolfhart, trans. Kohl, Margaret (Minneapolis, Minn., 1990) argues that these kinds of critiques no longer apply.Google ScholarIn a response to the Lehmann and Pannenberg study (translated and published in a serialized form in the Lutheran Quarterly 5 [1991]: 1–62, 337–371, 493–512), the theological faculty of Georgia Augusta University, Göttingen, concludes that the basic critiques of the Reformation period are still applicable.Google ScholarAside from that question, it is important to point out that the criteria that form the basis of Luther's evaluation apply equally to Lutherans as well as to those with whom they engage in ecumenical dialogue. For instance, Luther's conclusion that the pope was the Antichrist (SA 2.4.10) is ecumenically offensive to many modern sensibilities.The theological reasons that compelled Luther to make this conclusion in 1536 could also be used to evaluate the current preaching, teaching, and practice of contemporary Lutherans and, therefore, any preacher who confuses the gospel with the law preaches a word that is (one might say) “Antichristian.’Google ScholarOn this latter point, see my article, “Martin Luther's Understanding of the Pope as the Antichrist,’ Archive for Reformation History 85 (1994): 32–44.Google Scholar
19. SA 3.1.Google Scholar
20. Luther himself gave titles to the articles of this part of 5/1. See above, n. 12.Google Scholar
21. SA 1. Trans. Russell, The Schmalkald Articles.Google Scholar
22. Predigten des Jahres 1535, no. 27, 23 May, WA 41:275.30. See also Elert, Werner, The Structure of Lulheranism, vol. 1 (St. Louis, Mo., 1962), p. 205.Google Scholar
23. The Athanasian Creed uses this formula.Google Scholar
24. See Luther's Confession Concerning Christ's Supper (1528), WA 26:505;Google ScholarLuther's Works, vol. 37, ed. Fischer, Robert (Philadelphia, Pa., 1961), p. 366, where he explicated this theme at some length.Google Scholar
25. Luther quotes from Isaiah 53:5, 6; John 1:29; Romans 3:23–25, 26–28; Romans 4:25; Acts 4:12.Google Scholar
26. Bäumer, Remigius, Martin Luther und der Papst (Münster, Germany, 1970), p. 7. Bäumer cites a half dozen scholars who also conclude that, early in his life, Luther was favorably disposed toward the papacy.Google Scholar
27. WA 54:179f; LW34:328. See also Bäumer, p. 8.Google Scholar
28. SA 3.4.Google Scholar
