Martin Luther and Cajetan: divinity

ABSTRACT

From the beginning of his career Martin Luther thought intensively about questions concerning the human being’s capacities for loving God and the neighbor. The relation between human nature and love was a vital issue throughout his whole theological work even though he explicitly connected it with the concept of ‘imago Dei’ only quite late. Luther discusses human nature mostly in its fallen state, where the image is almost totally lost, but presents also his view of human nature in its pure state. He avoids identifying the Divine love and the image of God. Nevertheless, love clearly belongs to the image. The article aims at investigating the reason for this view and the question of ontological difference between Christ as the essential image of God and the ‘ordinary’ human being as having the image of God. Luther’s understanding of the role of love in the relation between the human being and God will be compared with that of his Catholic contemporary, Cardinal Cajetan. The article intends,furthermore, to describe how Luther understands the restoration of the image of God through the outward means of the Gospel and Sacraments and the inner but given affects of faith and love.

KEYWORDS:

• Love of God
• love of neighbor
• Martin Luther’s theology
• faith and love
• human nature
• imago Dei

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Sources

Luther, Martin

WAWerke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar.

1883–

Cajetan, Thomas de Vio

Comm. I-IISancti Thomae Aquinatis, Doctoris Angelici Opera Omnia iussu impensaque

1891Leonis XIII M. P. edita. Tomus septimus, Prima secundae Summae Theologiae a quaestione I ad questionem LXX ad codices manuscriptos vaticanos exacta. Cum commentarius Thomae de Vio Caietani Ordinis Praedicatorum S. R. E. Cardinalis cura et studio fratrum eiusdem ordinis. Romae ex typografia polyglotta s. c. de propaganda fide. MDCCCXCI.

Comm. I–II Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Doctoris Angelici Opera Omnia iussu impensaque

1893Leonis XIII M. P. edita. Tomus septimus, Prima secundae Summae Theologiae a quaestione LXXI ad questionem CXIV ad codices manuscriptos vaticanos exacta. Cum commentarius Thomae de Vio Caietani Ordinis Praedicatorum S. R. E. Cardinalis cura et studio fratrum eiusdem ordinis. Romae ex typografia polyglotta s. c. de propaganda fide. MDCCCXCIII.

Comm. II–IISancti Thomae Aquinatis, Doctoris Angelici Opera Omnia iussu impensaque

1895Leonis XIII M. P. edita. Tomus septimus, Secunda secundae Summae Theologiae a quaestione I ad questionem LV ad codices manuscriptos vaticanos exacta. Cum commentarius Thomae de Vio Caietani Ordinis Praedicatorum S. R. E. Cardinalis cura et studio fratrum eiusdem ordinis. Romae ex typografia polyglotta s. c. de propaganda fide. MDCCCXCV.

Notes

1. This has been often noticed in Luther-research, but the interpretations of the differentiation diverge. See Haikola, Studien zu Luther und zum Luthertum, 19–55; Hägglund, De homine, 30–54; Hägglund 1983; Joest, Ontologie der Person bei Luther, 163–262; Olsson, ‘Schöpfung, Vernunft und Gesetz’, 454–571; Ebeling 1982 deals with the philosophical definition of man and Ebeling 1989 analyses Luther’s theological view. Luther’s double anthropology has been interpreted also as based on his distinction between God’s temporal and spiritual reigns. See Gabler, ‘Luther on the Self.’

2. Karl Holl and other representatives of the German Luther Renaissance have stressed the centrality of the conscience for Luther. See, for example Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte I, 35; Hirsch, Lutherstudien I, 134.

3. StA 264, 26–30 (De libertate Christiana): ‘Homo enim duplici constat natura, spirituali et corporali, iuxta spiritualem, quam dicunt animam, vocatur spiritualis, interior, nouus homo, iuxta corporalem, quam carnem dicunt, vocatur carnalis, exterior, vetus homo, de quo Apostolus 2. Cor. 4. Licet is qui foris est noster homo corrumpantur, tamen is qui intus est, renouatur de die in diem’.

4. WA 7, 550, 19–21.

5. StA 2, 268, 9–14.

6. StA 2, 266, 32–33.

7. WA 7, 59–60, 9.

8. WA 7, 24–25.

9. StA 272, 12–19.

10. For Augustine’s view of God’s attributes as identical with His essence, see Augustine, The Trinity, 188–9, 459–60.

11. StA 272 32–274, 4; 274, 7–13.

12. StA 2, 274, 27–31.

13. See Raunio, Summe des christlichen Lebens, 250–59.

14. WA 7, 548, 2–4.

15. WA 7, 564, 18–22.

16. WA 7, 747, 33–748, 2; 4–11.

17. WA 7, 556, 12–18.

18. WA 7, 556, 18–22.

19. WA 7, 556, 25–557, 5.

20. See Raunio, Summe des christlichen Lebens, 320–43.

21. For the content of the expression ‘nondum in re sed in spe ’ in Luther’s lectures on the Galatians (1531/35) see Peura, ‘Iustitia christiana in Luthers später’, 199, 209 and in the lectures on Genesis, Forsberg, Das Abrahamsbild in der Theologie Luthers, 95–8.

22. Luther says the same already in his Sermons on the Genesis (1523–1524). See Huovinen, ‘An der Unsterblichkeit Teilhaftig’, 137–8.

23. WA 42, 45, 1–17; 47, 8–17; 50, 17–19; 63, 30–33. For a more detailed analysis of the restoration of the image of God see Raunio, 'Human Being'.

24. WA 39 I, 108, 12–15.

25. WA 42,47, 8–11.

26. WA 42, 63, 30–33. Luther speaks there about the human being as ‘particeps Dei’ and ‘particeps immortalitatis’. For a more detailed analysis see Huovinen, ‘An der Unsterblichkeit Teilhaftig’.

27. WA 50, 277, 19–22; 25–34.

28. WA 50, 277 23–5.

29. WA 24, 50, 9–15; 25–33.

30. WA 39 II, 298, 3–300, 1.

31. In the Large Commentary on the Letter to the Galatians, for instance, Luther states that the Christian person is not living in or for the self. WA 40/I, 283, 21–22. For the renewal of the will see Raunio, 'Human Being', 55–6 and for the difference between Luther and the Thomistic theology concerning neighborly love Kärkkäinen, ‘The Christian as Christ to the Neighbour’, 111 and Mannermaa, Two Kinds of Love, 13–9.

32. WA 42, 48, 28–31

33. WA 2, 499, 20–33.

34. See Raunio, 'Human Being', 54–5, based on WA 10 I 2, 203, 5–9; 205, 4–21.

35. Hamm, ‘Von der Gottesliebe des Mittelalters’, 21 comes also to the conclusion that faith is actually love of God.

36. WA 26, 505, 38–506, 12; WA 30/I, 191, 28–192, 8; 25–29.

37. For Luther’s understanding of the ‘seeking of one’s own’ (qua sua sunt querere), see Dieter, Der junge Luther und Aristoteles, 82–107.

38. WA 42, 50, 6–17.

39. WA 1, 225, 3–4: ‘18. Diligere deum super omnia naturaliter Est terminus fictus, sicut Chimera’.

40. WA 1, 224, 28–29; 34–35: ‘16. Illa potius est consequentia: homo errans potest diligere creaturam, ergo impossibile est ut diligat deum’.

41. WA 1, 224, 13–16.

42. WA 1, 225, 37.

43. WA 1, 225, 38–226, 5.

44. WA 1, 228, 19–22.

45. WA 1, 228, 29–33. Many researchers think that Luther changed his early understanding of hatred of self in his later writings, where he developed a more positive view of the world. However, even though he certainly came to see worldly things in an increasingly more positive light, he hardly abandoned his early view of the ‘self’. What has not always been noted is that in this context the ‘self’ does not refer to a human being’s innermost person but to the sinful ‘old man’, which hinders the correct relation to God and to the neighbor. See, for example, Gabler, ‘Luther on the Self,’ 121–2. For Luther’s understanding of the ‘self’ see also footnote 79.

46. Lohse, ‘Cajetan und Luther’, 48.

47. See also Janz, Luther and Late Medieval Thomism, 152.

48. Hallensleben, Communicatio, 150–1. I use Barbara Hallensleben’s study Communicatio. Anthropologie und Gnadenlehre bei Thomas de Vio Cajetan. Münster: Aschendorff 1985. Hallensleben deals also with Cajetan’s conception of love and provides citations of his writings.

49. Hallensleben, Communicatio, 172–5.

50. Nisula, Augustine and the Functions, 35–6, 47.

51. S. Th. I–II, q. 82, a. 3; See also q. 26, q. 30, and q. 77.

52. Comm S. Th. I–II, 82, 3, IV. Hallensleben, Communicatio, 246.

53. Cited through Hallensleben, Communicatio, 341, footnote 38.

54. Comm. Sth. II–II, 23,1, I. Hallensleben, Communicatio, 236–7.

55. Comm. Sth. II–II, 24, 7, XII.

56. Comm. Ad Rm. 5, 5. Hallensleben, Communicatio, 235–6.

57. Comm. STh II–II, 17, 5, V. Hallensleben, Communicatio, 236.

58. Comm. STh II–II, 24, 7, XII; Comm. Jh. 10, 34. Hallensleben, Communicatio, 238.

59. Mannermaa 2010 is a study of Luther’s theology of love based on the distinction between human and Divine love.

60. StA 1, 212, 4 (WA 1, 365): ‘Amor Dei non inuenit sed creat suum diligibile. Amor hominis fit a suo diligibile’.

61. StA 1, 212, 5–11.

62. Nygrén 1966, 28–9, 616–8.

63. WA 17 II, 74, 20–34.

64. WA 10 I 2, 9, 10–5.

65. WA 56, 390, 23–391, 13.

66. WA 56, 482, 20–7: ‘Dupliciter illud intelligitur preceptum: “Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum”, Leui. 19., Vbi habetur: “Diliges amicum tuum sicut teipsum.” Primum, Vt vtrunque intelligatur precipi, scil. proximus et ipsemet diligi. Alio modo, Vt solum proximus ad Exemplum dilectionis sui intelligatur precipi diligi. Quod magis placet, Quia homo naturali vitio se pre omnibus diligit, se in omnibus querit, omnia propter se diligit, etiam dum proximum Vel amicum diligit, Quia querit sua in illo’.

67. WA 56, 482, 28–483, 11.

68. WA 2, 580, 7–23. On Luther’s understanding of the golden rule as law of love, see Raunio, ‘Divine Law and Natural Law’, 33–44.

69. WA 2, 580, 24–39.

70. WA 2, 581, 1–11. See also Mau, ‘Liebe als gelebte Freiheit’, 27–8.

71. WA 2, 581, 12–25. See also Mau, ‘Liebe als gelebte Freiheit,’ 29.

72. Luther makes the distinction between ‘law’ and ‘exhortation’ for example in De servo arbitrio, WA 18,

73. Germanica, The Theologia Germanica, 77–9: ‘The old man is Adam, disobedience, self, I, and the like’; ‘One also says that man should die to himself, that is to say, man’s self and his I must die’; He who lives in his selfdom and according to the values of the old man is called – and is – Adam’s child: ‘… it has been written: The more of self and I, the more sin and wickedness; the less of self and I the less of sin’; ‘The more Mine and I, that is to say I-attachment and selfishness, recede, the more God is I, that is God himself, increases in me’. For Luther’s rejection of self-love see also Raunio, ‘Martin Luther and Love’, 13–4.

74. See, for example, Gaebler 2002 and Gaebler 2006, chapters 17 and 24–5.

75. See WA 40/I, 461, 3–10, 16–24.

76. WA 23, 347, 1–23.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Antti Raunio

Antti Raunio is a professor of systematic theology at the School of Theology in the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Eastern Finland. Having obtained his doctorate degree at the University of Helsinki, he has published widely on Luther’s understanding of love, ethics, and the human being, including his study Summe Des christlichen Lebens. Die ‘Goldene Regel’ als Gesetz der Liebe in der Theologie Martin Luthers von 1510 bis 1527 (Mainz, 2001). The same lines of research are deepened for example in the articles ‘Divine Law and Natural Law in Luther and Melanchthon’, ‘Martin Luther and Love’, and in his forthcoming ‘Inward and Outward Man in Luther’s Thought’. His interests include also theology of spirituality and environmental theology.