Lutheran orthodoxy was an era in the history ofLutheranism, which began in1580 from the writing of theBook of Concord and ended at theAge of Enlightenment. Lutheranorthodoxy was paralleled by similar eras inCalvinism andtridentineRoman Catholicism after theCounter-Reformation.
Lutheran scholasticism was atheological method that gradually developed during the era of Lutheran orthodoxy. Theologians used theneo-Aristotelian form of presentation, already popular in academia, in their writings and lectures. They defined the Lutheran faith and defended it against thepolemics of opposing parties.
| Part of the series on Modern scholasticism | |
_Operis_de_religione.png) | |
| Title page of the Operis de religione (1625) fromFrancisco Suárez. | |
| Background | |
|---|---|
Protestant Reformation | |
| Modern scholastics | |
Second scholasticism of theSchool of Salamanca | |
| Reactions within Christianity | |
The Jesuits againstJansenism | |
| Reactions within philosophy | |
Neologists againstLutherans | |
Martin Luther died in 1546, andPhilipp Melanchthon in 1560. After the death of Luther came the period of theSchmalkaldic War and disputes amongCrypto-Calvinists,Philippists,Sacramentarians,Ubiquitarians, andGnesio-Lutherans.
TheBook of Concord gave inner unity to Lutheranism, which had many controversies, mostly betweenGnesio-Lutherans andPhilippists, inRoman Catholic outward pressure and in alleged "crypto-Calvinistic" influence. Lutheran theology became more stable in its theoretical definitions.
Lutheran scholasticism developed gradually, especially for the purpose of disputation with theJesuits, and it was finally established byJohann Gerhard (1582–1637).Abraham Calovius (1612–1686) represents the climax of thescholasticparadigm in orthodox Lutheranism. Other orthodox Lutheran theologians include (for example)Martin Chemnitz,Aegidius Hunnius,Leonhard Hutter (1563–1616),Nicolaus Hunnius,Jesper Rasmussen Brochmand,Salomo Glassius,Johann Hülsemann,Johann Conrad Dannhauer,Valerius Herberger,Johannes Andreas Quenstedt,Johann Friedrich König andJohann Wilhelm Baier.
The theological heritage ofPhilip Melanchthon arose again in theHelmstedt School and especially in the theology ofGeorgius Calixtus (1586–1656), which caused thesyncretistic controversy of 1640–1686. Another theological issue was theCrypto-Kenotic Controversy[1] of 1619–1627.
Late orthodoxy was torn by influences fromrationalism andpietism. Orthodoxy produced numerouspostils, which were important devotional readings. Along with hymns, they conserved orthodox Lutheran spirituality during this period of heavy influence frompietism andneology.Johann Gerhard,Heinrich Müller andChristian Scriver wrote other kinds of devotional literature.[2]The last prominent orthodox Lutheran theologian before the Enlightenment andNeology wasDavid Hollatz. A later orthodox theologian,Valentin Ernst Löscher, took part in a controversy againstPietism. Mediaevalmystical tradition continued in the works ofMartin Moller,Johann Arndt andJoachim Lütkemann.Pietism became a rival of orthodoxy but adopted some orthodox devotional literature, such as those of Arndt, Scriver andStephan Prätorius, which have often been later mixed with pietistic literature.
David Hollatz[3] combinedmystic and scholastic elements.[4]
Scholastic dogmaticians followed the historical order of God's saving acts. First Creation was taught, then the Fall, followed by Redemption, and finished by the Last Things.[5] This order, as an independent part of the Lutheran tradition, was not derived from any philosophical method. It was followed not only by those using the loci method, but also those using the analytical.[6] The usual order of the loci:[5]
High Scholasticism inWestern Christianity aimed at an exhaustive treatment of theology, supplementing revelation by the deductions of reason.Aristotle furnished the rules according to which it proceeded, and after a while he became the authority for both the source and process of theology.[4]
Lutheranism began as a vigorous protest against scholasticism, starting withMartin Luther.[4] Around the time he became a monk, Luther sought assurances about life, and was drawn to theology and philosophy, expressing particular interest inAristotle and the scholasticsWilliam of Ockham andGabriel Biel.[7] He was deeply influenced by two tutors,Bartholomaeus Arnoldi von Usingen and Jodocus Trutfetter, who taught him to be suspicious of even the greatest thinkers,[7] and to test everything himself by experience.[8] Philosophy proved to be unsatisfying, offering assurance about the use ofreason, but none about the importance, for Luther, of loving God. Reason could not lead men to God, he felt, and he developed a love-hate relationship with Aristotle over the latter's emphasis on reason.[8] For Luther, reason could be used to question men and institutions, but not God. Human beings could learn about God only throughdivine revelation, he believed, andScripture therefore became increasingly important to him.[8]
In particular, Luther wrote theses 43 and 44 for his student Franz Günther to publicly defend in 1517 as part of earning his Baccalaureus Biblicus degree:[9]
It is not merely incorrect to say that without Aristotle no man can become a theologian; on the contrary, we must say: he is no theologian who does not become one without Aristotle
Martin Luther held that it was "not at all in conformity with the New Testament to write books about Christian doctrine." He noted that before the Apostles wrote books, they "previously preached to and converted the people with the physical voice, which was also their real apostolic and New Testament work."[10] To Luther, it was necessary to write books to counter all the false teachers and errors of the present day, but writing books on Christian teaching came at a price. "But since it became necessary to write books, there is already a great loss, and there is uncertainty as to what is meant."[11] Martin Luther taught preaching and lectured upon thebooks of the Bible in an exegetical manner. To Luther, St. Paul was the greatest of allsystematic theologians, and hisEpistle to the Romans was the greatestdogmatics textbook of all time.[4]
Analysis of Luther's works, however, reveals a reliance on scholastic distinctions and modes of argument even after he had dismissed scholasticism entirely. Luther seems to be comfortable with the use of such theological methods so long as the content of theology is normed by scripture, though his direct statements regarding scholastic method are unequivocally negative.[12]
In contrast,Philipp Melanchthon scarcely began to lecture on Romans before he decided to formulate and arrange the definitions of the common theological terms of the epistle in hisLoci Communes.[13]
Martin Chemnitz,Mathias Haffenreffer, andLeonhard Hutter simply expanded upon Melanchthon'sLoci Communes.[14] With Chemnitz, however, a biblical method prevailed. At Melanchthon's suggestion he undertook a course of self-study. He began by carefully working through the Bible in the original languages while also answering questions that had previously puzzled him. When he felt ready to move on, he turned his attention to reading through the early theologians of the church slowly and carefully. Then he turned to current theological concerns and once again read painstakingly while making copious notes.[15] His tendency was to constantly support his arguments with what is now known asbiblical theology. He understood biblical revelation to be progressive—building from the earlier books to the later ones—and examined his supporting texts in their literary contexts and historical settings.[4]
Properly speaking, Lutheran scholasticism began in the 17th century, when the theological faculty ofWittenberg took up the scholastic method to fend off attacks by Jesuit theologians of theSecond Scholastic Period of Roman Catholicism.[16]
The philosophical school ofneo-Aristotelianism began among Roman Catholics, for example, the universitiesPadua andCoimbra. However, it spread to Germany by the late 16th century, resulting in a distinctly Protestant system ofmetaphysics associated withhumanism.[17] Thisscholastic system of metaphysics held thatabstract concepts could explain the world in clear, distinct terms. This influenced the character of thescientific method.[18]
Jacopo Zabarella, anatural philosopher from Padua, taught that one could begin with a goal in mind and then explain ways to reach the goal.[18] Although this was a scientific concept that Lutherans did not feel theology had to follow, by the beginning of the 17th century, Lutheran theologianBalthasar Mentzer attempted to explain theology in the same way. Beginning with God as the goal, he explained the doctrine of man, the nature of theology, and the way man can attaineternal happiness with God. This form of presentation, called theanalytic method, replaced theloci method used by Melancthon in hisLoci Communes. This method made the presentation of theology more uniform, as each theologian could present Christian teaching as the message of salvation and the way to attain this salvation.[6]
After the time ofJohann Gerhard, Lutherans lost their attitude that philosophy was antagonistic to theology.[19] Instead, Lutheran dogmaticians usedsyllogistic arguments and the philosophical terms common in the neo-Aristotelianism of the time to make fine distinctions and enhance the precision of their theological method.[20] Scholastic Lutheran theologians engaged in a twofold task. First, they collected texts, arranged them, supported them with arguments, and gave rebuttals based on the theologians before them. Second, they completed their process by going back to the pre-Reformation scholastics in order to gather additional material which they assumed the Reformation also accepted. Even though the Lutheran scholastic theologians added their own criticism to the pre-Reformation scholastics, they still had an important influence. Mainly, this practice served to separate their theology from direct interaction with Scripture.[4] However, their theology was still built on Scripture as an authority that needed no external validation.[21] Their scholastic method was intended to serve the purpose of their theology.[22] Some dogmaticians preferred to use thesynthetic method, while others used theanalytic method, but all of them allowed Scripture to determine theform and content of their statements.[23]
Some Lutheran scholastic theologians, for example,Johann Gerhard,[24] used exegetical theology along with Lutheran scholasticism. However, in Calov, even his exegesis is dominated by his use of the analytic method[25] WithJohann Friedrich König and his studentJohannes Andreas Quenstedt,[26] scholastic Lutheran theology reached its zenith.[4] However the 20th century Lutheran scholarRobert Preus was of the opinion that König went overboard with the scholastic method by overloading his small book,Theologia Positiva Acroamatica with Aristotelian distinctions.[20] He noted that the scholastic method was inherently loaded with pitfalls. In particular, dogmaticians sometimes establishedcause and effect relationships without suitable links. When dogmaticians forcedmysteries of the faith to fit into strict cause and effect relationships, they created "serious inconsistencies".[20] In addition, sometimes they drew unneeded or baseless conclusions from the writings of their opponents, which not only was unproductive, but also harmed their own cause more than that of their rivals.[20] Later orthodox dogmaticians tended to have an enormous number of artificial distinctions.[6]
On the other hand, the Lutheran scholastic method, although often tedious and complicated, managed to largely avoid vagueness and the fallacy ofequivocation. As a result, their writings are understandable and prone to misrepresentation only by those entirely opposed to their theology.[20] The use of scholastic philosophy also made Lutheran orthodoxy more intellectually rigorous. Theological questions could be resolved in a clean cut, even scientific, manner. The use of philosophy gave orthodox Lutheran theologians better tools to pass on their tradition than were otherwise available. It is also worth noting that it was only after neo-Aristotelian philosophical methods were ended that orthodox Lutheranism came to be criticized as austere, non-Christian formalism.[6]
The term “scholasticism” is used to indicate both thescholastic theology that arose during the pre-Reformation Church and the methodology associated with it. While Lutherans reject the theology of the scholastics, some accept their method.[4]Henry Eyster Jacobs writes of the scholastic method:
Congregations maintained the fullMass rituals in their normal worship as suggested by Luther. In hisHauptgottesdienst (principal service of worship),Holy Communion was celebrated on each Sunday and festival. The traditional parts of the service were retained and, sometimes, evenincense was also used.[27] Services were conducted invernacular language, but in Germany, Latin was also present in both theOrdinary andProper parts of the service. This helped students maintain their familiarity with the language.[28] As late as the time ofJohann Sebastian Bach, churches inLeipzig still heardPolyphonic motets in Latin, LatinGlorias,chanted Latincollects andThe Creed sung in Latin by the choir.[29]
Church music flourished and this era is considered as a "golden age" ofLutheran hymnody.[30] Some hymnwriters includePhilipp Nicolai,Johann Heermann,Johann von Rist andBenjamin Schmolck in Germany,Haquin Spegel in Sweden,Thomas Hansen Kingo in Denmark,Petter Dass in Norway,Hallgrímur Pétursson in Iceland, andHemminki Maskulainen in Finland. The most famous orthodox Lutheran hymnwriter isPaul Gerhardt. Prominent church musicians and composers includeMichael Praetorius,Melchior Vulpius,Johann Hermann Schein,Heinrich Schütz,Johann Crüger,Dieterich Buxtehude and Bach.[31][32] Generally, the 17th century was a more difficult time than the earlier period ofReformation, due in part to theThirty Years' War. Finland suffered a severefamine in 1696-1697 as part of what is now called theLittle Ice Age, and almost one third of the population died.[33] This struggle to survive can often be seen in hymns and devotional writings.
The era of Lutheran orthodoxy is not well known, and it has been very often looked at only through the view ofliberal theology andpietism and thus underestimated. The wide gap between the theology ofOrthodoxy andrationalism has sometimes limited later theologicalneo-Lutheran andconfessional Lutheran attempts to understand and restore Lutheran orthodoxy.
More recently, a number of social historians, as well as historical theologians, have brought Lutheran orthodoxy to the forefront of their research. These scholars have expanded the understanding of Lutheran orthodoxy to include topics such as preaching and catechesis, devotional literature, popular piety, religious ritual, music and hymnody, and the concerns of cultural and political historians.[34]
The most significant theologians of Orthodoxy can be said to beMartin Chemnitz andJohann Gerhard. Lutheran orthodoxy can also be reflected in such rulers asErnst I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Altenburg andGustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
Authority control databases: National |
|---|
