05-4 Theology of the..

60 LOGIA
THE INFUSION OF LOVE
Luther’s “Cross-Theology” is something different than what we
today generally refer to as “Theology of the Cross.” His early concepts
[sic] later fall like scales from his eyes as he sheds his Augustinianism
for the unfettered Gospel. You can begin to get a sense of
this by reading Regin Prenter, Spiritus Creator: Luther’s Concept
of the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1953), pages
3–5, 8–9.
In Luther’s lectures on the Epistle to the Romans during 1515–16,
we read in the notes on Romans 2:15: “From this I believe that
the sentence ‘let the law be written in their heart’ says the same
thing as ‘Love is infused into the heart through
the Holy Spirit.’ It is in the same sense both the law of Christ
and the fulfillment of the law of Moses.” [WA 56, 203, 8]
This is the young Luther’s fundamental formula for the
understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is in complete
accordance with the traditional way of expression, especially in
the Augustinian sense. When the young Luther speaks of the
work of the Holy Spirit he very often uses Augustinian terminology
and he often quotes Augustine directly. The work of the
Holy Spirit is to infuse into the heart the true love of God so
that obedience to the command of the law is brought about
not by fear of punishment but because of a free and happy love
to God.
Has this carried us beyond a purely Augustinian way of
thinking
It has often been stated that in Luther’s lectures as a young
man his doctrine of justification bears a definitely Augustinian
mark, and that it can best be characterized by the idea of a progressive
and healing Gerechtmachung (process of justification)
through the Holy Spirit’s infusing of the true love to God. Is that
not the true explanation of the problem Does this bring out any
new statement about the work of the Holy Spirit, different from
the traditional Augustinian thinking
In answering this question it is not sufficient to note an apparent
agreement in terminology. We must study the connection in
which the apparently identical formulas are found in Augustine
(and in scholasticism) and in Luther. Then we find that a new
content has been put into the forms which Luther has taken over
from Augustine.
We begin by asking what sort of caritas it is that according to
Luther is infused into the heart by the Holy Spirit.
In answering this question we are led right into the heart of
Luther’s theologia crucis, and it becomes apparent that behind
the similarity in the vocabulary of Luther and Augustine there
is a deep and decisive difference.
Augustine says that love to God is similar to the amor sui (love
of self) rightly understood. Luther may state it in almost the same
way: “For to love means to hate oneself, to condemn oneself, to
wish ill to oneself according to the words of Christ: ‘He that
hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.’ Whoever
loves himself in this way loves himself truly, for his love of
self is not of himself but of God, i.e. according to the will of God
which hates and condemns and wishes evil to all sin, i.e. to us all”
[WA 56, 392, 20].
The radicalism with which Luther carried through his
thought about odium sui and condemnatio sui (hatred of self
and condemnation of self) made his teaching about the love
of God differ from Augustine’s definite conception of amor
Dei as amor summi boni which proceeds from the anthropologically
founded caro-spiritus dualism. But is Luther’s view
of odium sui and conformity to the will of God not more
closely related to mysticism Is not that which Luther produces
simply a radically absorbed Augustinian view about the
infused love penetrated by the theologia crucis of mysticism
Was it not the mystics who spoke so radically about odium sui
and condemnatio sui
The purely historic question regarding the time and extent of
the influence of mysticism on Luther not only has appropriated
some of the terminology of mysticism but also that he actually
has been influenced by several of the spokesmen of mysticism.
His writings show how deeply he studied the mystics such as
Tauler during the years his own theologia crucis was being
formed, and also that at times he accepted the view of the mystics.
However, we must not draw too comprehensive conclusions
on the basis of the similarity in choice of words.
THE CROSS AND THE
CHRISTIAN LIFE
Walter von Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1976), translated by Herbert
J. A. Bouman from the original Luthers Theologia Crucis (Witten:
Luther-Verlag, 1967). This excerpt is from pages 123–125. References
in parentheses are from WA unless indicated otherwise.
It may be useful to demonstrate in individual concrete points
the hiddenness and character of suffering of the Christian life,
which we have presented in general.
1. The loveliest gift accompanying the Christian life is peace.
Through faith we have peace (3, 567, 12ff.). But this happens
through faith! The theology of the cross cannot dispense with
that. If pietism demands more, it only shows that it has moved
a considerable distance away from Luther. For that very reason
it is so easily exposed to psychological distortions. Christian
peace has nothing to do with such peace. The contrast “harm
onious and inharmonious nature” lies beneath the peace which
surpasses all understanding. But for that very reason this peace
is an object of faith and therefore a hidden treasure (56, 246,
11ff.; AE 25: 232; W. Br. 1, 47, 27ff.). The world sees nothing of
this peace, and feeling and experience go away empty-handed.
Here, too, the cross proves itself to be a great sign of concealment
(56, 424, 27ff.; AE 25: 415; 56, 425, 8ff.; AE 25: 416f.).
The way of peace is the way of the cross; God himself is hidden
under the cross, and therefore peace is to be found only under
the cross and suffering (1, 90, 6ff.). One who seeks peace misses
the true peace; one who shuns the cross will not find peace (5,
318, 34ff.). Peace is not to be sought by way of empirical experience,
as pietism thinks. According to Luther, that would be