Crux sola est nostra Theologia: On being a theologian of the cross - Part 2 of 3

The crux of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation lies within the six theses which are about to be discussed. The formulation of his theology has been building from the outset of his disputation. Yet due to the nature of this discussion let it suffice to assume this author’s awareness of the original context as a whole and the heart of Luther’s thought. This section of his disputation will be broken down into two digestible segments. First, in theses 19-21 Luther contrasts the two types of theologies – the theology of the cross and the theology of glory. Second, in theses 22-24 he examines those two theologies in relation to wisdom and the law.

Two Types of Theology

In theses 19-20 Luther begins to depict who a theologian is and what a theologian does. He contrasts the two types of theology mentioned above. It is not until thesis 21 does Luther actually specifically state a “theology of the cross” or a “theology of glory.”[1] However, as stated earlier, he sets the background in his previous eighteen theses and builds toward this theological climax.
Thesis 19 states "that person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened."[2] This thought was extrapolated from the Apostle’s writing in his epistle to the Romans. When Luther looked at Rom. 1:20-32 he saw that men who had perceived (seen and understood) the invisible attributes of God still rejected Him. Therefore they “became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools” (Rom. 1:21b-22).
In Luther’s mind they were still considered fools even though they observed the invisible attributes of God. For every thesis stated, Luther adds some commentary to this statement to explain his thoughts and reasoning. Therefore he remarks concerning invisible attributes in thesis 19. "The invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise."[3]
This is only the embryonic stages of what Luther will eventually propound. However, at this point he is beginning to argue that God cannot be truly known by mankind through his invisible attributes. For Luther, God initially revealed himself in this way in creation. Nonetheless, God no longer reveals himself in this manner because of what man has done (Rom. 1:20-32).[4] God now reveals himself through Christ. It is through the crucifixion and resurrection that God can be known. Thesis 20 explains this aspect.
The contrasting side is presented in the following thesis. Luther propounds that "[h]e deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross."[5] He now turns to the all important passage in 1 Cor. 1. In his explanation he defines the visible attributes of God. In the midst of his explanation the idea of the “hidden God” is brought to light.
The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1 [:25] calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering...so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering. As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1 [:21], "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.[6]

At this point Luther comes out and firmly states that God cannot be known in or through any other manner or means than the cross. It is solely by the preaching of what is foolish and weak that men are able to know God. He states, "Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. [45:14] says, "Truly, thou are a God who hidest thyself."[7]
For Luther Christ in his humility, suffering, and anguish was the visible manifestation of God. In his mind the only way to see and know God was through His Son. He proves this when he refers to the dialogue between Philip and the Lord in John 14. Philip asked Christ to "Show us the Father." Yet Christ's response to Philip's request was "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Luther goes on to present examples that Christ is the only avenue to the Father. He states John 14:6 where "No one comes to the Father, but by me." He also gives the example where Christ illustrates that He is the "door" in John 10:9. Passages such as these are basic proof that the only way to see God is through the cross. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father. For in Luther's mind there was no alternative.[8]
The last thesis of the first triad is a comparison of the two theologies. Thesis 21 reads: "A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is."[9] Theologians of glory want to call and define terms on their own basis.[10] God is not the standard; they are. A theology of glory wants to be in control and be the definer. He wants to be the one to identify things. For the theologian of the cross, he looks through the lens of Christ and the cross and defines things by God’s terms. God is the standard for description and depiction.[11]
In summary, a theologian of glory wants to do things his way. He wants to earn God’s favor on his own merit. On the contrary, a theologian of the cross looks to his Savior and is “deflated and destroyed” by the cross and “knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s.”[12]

Two Types of Theology Concerning Wisdom and the Law

After contrasting the two types of theologies in the first triad of these six theses, Luther moves on to describe these conflicting theologies in light of wisdom and the Law of God. The second triad begins with thesis 22 stating, "That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened."[13] He remarks, "Because men do not know the cross and hate it, they necessarily love the opposite, namely, wisdom, glory, power, and so on. Therefore they become increasingly blinded and hardened by such love, for desire cannot be satisfied by the acquisition of those things which it desires."[14]
Luther goes on to illustrate such a desire. He uses the analogy of loving money. One's love for money always grows. His desire will never subside without divine intervention. He cites Ecclesiastes 1:8 which states that "the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing." In his mind this is true with all desires. "The remedy for curing desire does not lie in satisfying it, but in extinguishing it."[15]
So it is with the desire for knowledge. Gaining wisdom and intellect only feeds that desire for more knowledge. It does not cure or alleviate it in any way. Glory, strength, power, and praise are all fueled by the fleshly human desire of wanting more glory, strength, and so forth. Luther cites the words of Christ in John 4 when He converses with the Samaritan woman at the well. Christ said "Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again" (John 4:13). Satisfying a desire will not cure it; rather, one must extinguish it. In order to become wise, one must become a fool and seek after foolishness, not more wisdom. In order to obtain glory, strength, power, and praise one must forsake pursuing these things. Luther concludes his explanation of this thesis with the following phrase: "This is the wisdom which is folly to the world."[16] The mind of man will never grasp this concept without the imparting of grace.
In the next thesis Luther addresses the Law. As stated in thesis 1 the law cannot and does not advance man in righteousness. That is not its purpose. Rather the law restricts man in obtaining a righteous standing.[17] "The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ [Rom. 4:15]" says Luther.[18] He forcefully opposed those who boasted in the law and in their own wisdom of the law. To him they were boasting in utter confusion. This would eventually lead to their damnation, death, and the wrath of God upon their lives. He cites numerous passages to support his claim (Gal. 3:10, 13; Rom. 4:15; 7:10; 2:12, 23).[19]
In this final thesis of the second triad Luther retracts somewhat in the forceful manner of his previous claims. However, he does not lose any emotion in conveying his thoughts. He merely conveys that wisdom and the law are in and of themselves from God (Rom. 7:12; 1 Tim. 4:4; Gen. 1:31). Therefore, they are not inherently evil. But, he claims, when used apart from God they are stepping stones for man to boost his self-esteem and self-worth. It is then they become the "best in the worst manner."[20]
For Luther a man must be completely and utterly emptied of himself (Phil. 2:7). He must realize that he is totally dependant upon God. Everything within him is from God. There must not be any boasting on man's part. Every work done within him is a gift of grace from God. Every work withheld from him is also because of God. Regardless of what happens a man must understand that only through the suffering, shame and humility of the cross (i.e. theology of the cross) can God be known. Luther states, "It is this that Christ says in John 3:[7], 'You must be born anew.' To be born anew, one must consequently first die and then be raised up with the Son of Man. To die, I say, means to feel death at hand."[21]
Now that the two theologies have been presented and examined in relation to wisdom and the law, the next section will analyze the heart of Martin Luther’s theology of the cross.

[1] Tomlin, Graham, The Power of the Cross, Monograph, ed. Trevor A. Hart, David F. Wright, Anthony N.S. Lane, Paternoster Theological Monographs (Great Britain: Paternoster, 1999), 154. Luther's theology of the cross begins to appear in his first set of lectures on the Psalms, the Dictata super Psalterium of 1513-15. However, It is not until his Heidelberg Disputation in 1518 that his theology of the cross is fully developed.
.
[2] Harold J. Grimm, ed., Luther's Works, Career of the Reformer: I, by Martin Luther, American Edition (Philadephia, PA: Muhlenberg Press, 1957), vol. 31:52.

[3] Ibid., 31:52.

[4] Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 1963, trans. Robert C. Schultz, Second Ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), 25-26

[5] Luther, Career of the Reformer: I, 31:52.

[6] Ibid., 31:52.

[7] Ibid., 31:52-53.

[8] Ibid, 31:53.

[9] Ibid, 31:53.

[10] Ibid, 31:53. Theses three and four are good examples of theologians of glory. Thesis three states, “Although the works of man always seems attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.” Likewise four reiterates the previous, “Although the works of God are always unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.” Man views eternally good things as evil because he is the one defining what is good and bad. However, man’s ways are not the ways of God (Isa. 55:8-9).

[11] Ibid, 31:53. Luther comments, "This is clear: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general good to evil. These are the people who the apostle calls "enemies of the cross of Christ' [Phil. 3:18], for they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil and the evil of a deed good. God can be found only in suffering and the cross, as has already been said. Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and works are evil, for through the cross works are dethroned and the old Adam, who is especially edified by works, is crucified."

[12] Ibid., 31:53.

[13] Ibid., 31:53.

[14] Ibid., 31:53.

[15] Ibid., 31:53.

[16] Ibid., 31:53-54.

[17] Ibid., 31:42.

[18] Ibid., 31:54.

[19] Ibid., 31:54.

[20] Ibid., 31:55. Thesis 24 reads, “Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner.”

[21] Ibid., 31:55.

Crux sola est nostra Theologia: On being a theologian of the cross - Part 1 of 3

Recently I read this book which has greatly influence my spiritual walk. Luther is such an incredible man who was used by God in some incredible ways. Five centuries later, his life and work still resonates clearly. Here are some of my thoughts and research from the life of Luther. Oh, for great biographies on his life check out Bainton's Here I Stand and Oberman's Man Between God and the Devil.


One year after his famous posting of the Ninety-five Theses, Martin Luther penned a short work which would eventually form his position concerning justification by faith alone. This work is referred to as the Heidelberg Disputation and within the text of this document his “theology of the cross” is revealed. However, before the theological implications are brought forth and the examination of them, let the historical context be revealed first in order to cast further light upon this subject.


The Early Years

The life of Martin Luther life could be compared to that of the apostle Paul. Both men started off their “careers” in the midst of a certain religious group only later to repudiate the practices and beliefs they originally had been taught. For the apostle Paul this was of course the life of a zealous Pharisee. For Martin Luther this was the eventual and painful break with the Roman Catholic Church. Respectively, both men being divinely empowered shook the world of their modern day.
In the opening paragraph of his paramount biography on Luther, Roland H. Bainton cleverly introduces Luther as
The man who thus called upon a saint was later to repudiate the cult of the saints. He who vowed to become a monk was later to renounce monasticism. A loyal son of the Catholic Church, he was later to shatter the structure of medieval Catholicism. A devoted servant of the pope, he was later to identify the popes with Antichrist. For this young man was Martin Luther.[1]

According to Martin Luther’s prolific biographer, Heiko A. Oberman "Luther was born in the center of the county of Mansfeld, in Eisleben, a small town with a population of no more than four thousand, situated about seventy miles southwest of Wittenberg and some sixty miles northeast of Erfurt."[2] Although the exact date of Luther's birth has come under some slight disagreement, a great deal of evidence points to the date which Luther's close friend, biographer, and colleague, Philipp Melanchthon had set - the date, November 10, 1483.[3]
Luther was the son of Hans and Margaret Luther. His parents had a profound impact upon young Martin. The education he received at home was fleshed out in his later life. For example, the way he disciplined his own children was shaped by how he was disciplined as a child. According to Oberman, Luther felt as if his upbringing was "strict but not unfeeling." It was his upbringing that shaped and molded the direction in which he would eventually follow: the monastic life. Luther is quoted as saying, "The serious and austere life they led with me later caused me to enter a monastery and become a monk; but they meant it very well indeed."[4] Oberman succinctly summarizes Luther's early years by stating,
Responsibility, experience with misbehavior, and subsequent punishment were all shaped into concepts which later became so central to the Reformer, and molded - or at least sharpened - young Martin's conscience. It was the way he was raised at home that brought him to the gates of the monastery - but not straightaway.[5]


The Educational Period

Luther started out his academic career in the field of law. He enrolled in the University of Erfurt in 1501. During periods of Luther’s childhood and especially during his time in Erfurt he confirmed to having moods of deep depression. He referred to these states of anguish and painful inner struggles as Anfechtungen[6] or “trials.”
Luther's outbreaks of Anfechtungen never gave warning or indication. They continued to plague him throughout his life. Much speculation exists as to why or when he suffered from these excruciating periods.[7] Bainton indicates that the "precise delineation" is unknown. These periods of Anfechtungen do not point to a single traumatic experience or crisis. However, the drifting nature of these stages proved that there were no definite causes, times, localities or situations. To Luther they overcame him without warning or sign.[8]
For Luther these periods of Anfechtungen were more painful than any other physical ailment he had ever encountered. Because of these painful experiences Luther sought after God all the more earnestly. These periods of Anfechtungen drove him to find respite for his soul. Bainton states,
Luther probed every resource of contemporary Catholicism for assuaging the anguish of a spirit alienated from God. He tried the way of good works and discovered that he could never do enough to save himself. He endeavored to avail himself of the merits of the saints and ended with a doubt, not a very serious doubt or persistent doubt for the moment, but sufficient to destroy his assurance.[9]

Nevertheless, despite his periods of Anfechtungen on September 29, 1502, Luther received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Erfurt. By January 7, 1505, he had successfully completed and received his Master of Arts degree. However, all of his academic preparation was soon to take a drastic change. On July 2, 1505, the twenty-one year old Luther was returning to Erfurt from his hometown after spending some time with his parents when he was caught in a terrible thunderstorm. Fearing death Luther cried out in anguish to Saint Anne, the patron saint of miners, “Help me Saint Anne;[10] I will become a monk.”[11] This event is often referred to as Luther’s “lighting experience.”[12]
Luther’s life was spared, and so he reluctantly took the cowl, much to the dismay of his parents.[13] Against his father’s wishes he enlisted in the strict Augustinian cloister there in Erfurt, a mere fifteen days after he had given his “vow”. Once in the cowl Luther poured every ounce of energy into his new found lifestyle. The life of a monk was vigorous, and Luther energetically carried out his duties. While at Erfurt, Luther resorted to extreme forms of asceticism hoping to gain the favor of God and in essence save himself. He would fast for extended periods of time, pray for several straight hours, and even sleep without blankets to the point where he almost froze.[14] However, salvation and respite of his soul would not come to Luther until his “tower experience” several years later.
In 1510 Luther and one other brother from the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt were sent to the Eternal City, Rome to represent their chapter. It was this trip to Rome that Luther was exposed to the rampant immorality and the grossness of the sins being committed not only in the "holy city" but also among the clergy. According to Bainton this trip for Luther was a vivid portrayal of this Augustinian monk's character. The experiences during his time in Rome reveal much about the man, Martin Luther. Luther himself admitted that he went to Rome with onions and had returned home with garlic.[15] His experience in Rome was only the mere beginning of the rumblings that would take place in his soul, and those rumblings would eventually be felt throughout all of Christendom.


The Events before Heidelberg

In April 1511 Luther moved from the monastery in Erfurt to a small village called Wittenberg. He had been selected to teach theology at the University of Wittenberg. Bainton describes Wittenberg as a mere village compared to Erfurt. Its population was estimated around 2,000 to 2,500. The dominant site in the little village of Wittenberg was the university. In 1511 the university was quite new. Frederick the Wise, the elector of Saxony chose teachers from Augustinian and Franciscan orders to supply teachers hoping to induce its establishment so that it might stand as superior to the prestigious University of Leipzig.[16] It was here at the University of Wittenberg that Dr. Martin Luther, the professor of theology, would spend the remainder of his life.
It was also here at Wittenberg where Luther became quite familiar with a man by the name of Johann von Staupitz.[17] Staupitz played a significant role in the life of Martin Luther. He was the vicar-general of the Augustinian order in Germany. Luther respected this man greatly. His influence and opinions impacted Luther. It was during Luther’s periods of deep spiritual struggles that Staupitz helped him realize the forgiveness of God.[18] Bainton suggests that no other man could have been a better spiritual influence than Staupitz. He comments, "The vicar knew all the cures prescribed by the schoolmen for spiritual ailments, and besides had a warm religious life of his own with a sympathetic appreciation of the distress of another." Luther is quoted as saying, "If it had not been for Dr. Staupitz, I should have sunk into hell." The very character of Staupitz definably shaped the life of Martin Luther.[19]
Luther is probably best known for his postings of his ninety-five theses on the Castle Church doors of Wittenberg on October 31, 1517.[20] These theses attack John Tetzel’s motives and scheme[21] in the employment of indulgences.[22] While being the most famous of Luther’s documents it is probably not one of his most important documents. Rather his theses only set the stage for even greater controversies.[23]
The date was April 11, 1518. Luther had been called to the city of Heidelberg. The trip would be dangerous. By this time Luther had enemies. Four months prior, Albert of Mainz had notified the curia of Luther’s actions. Consequently the religious orders in that region were well aware of Martin Luther and his activities.[24] Staupitz asked him to defend his theology in wake of the controversy which had been stirred up by his posting of the ninety-five theses the year prior. He was to address the German Augustinian order with his views. In defense he was to write out a disputation or an argument concerning the ideas behind and supporting his theology. Basically Luther’s disputation was a basic, foundational thesis of what he truly believed. In addition, Staupitz had requested Luther to not bring controversial topics to the disputation. Consequently, his Heidelberg theses say nothing concerning indulgences of which had obviously been the main thrust of his postings on the castle door at Wittenberg.
Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation is made up of forty thesis statements. The first twenty-eight are theological. The last twelve are philosophical. Throughout the first twenty-eight theses Luther lays out powerful theological concepts such as grace, sin, free will, works of God and man, and the law of God. The philosophical theses are rebuttals against the current scholasticism and natural theology of his day (which he refers to as the “theology of glory”). He puts down Aristotelian reasoning and emphasizes that human wisdom and philosophy of man are foolishness compared to grace and the cross.
Although Luther did not make a distinguishing outline, his theological theses can easily be divided up into four distinct categories. In the first twelve theses Luther deals with the works of man and sin. The following six he discusses the concept of free will and the grace of God. In the next six theses Luther introduces his concept of his “theology of the cross.” In this section he contrasts the “theology of glory” to the “theology of the cross.” The final four theses cover the work of God in the faith of the righteous. Luther’s third section in his theological theses concerning his “theology of the cross” will be the focus of this research.



[1] Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Pierce and Smith, 1950; reprint, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1978), 15.

[2] Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (New York, NY: Image Books, Doubleday, 1992), 82.

[3] Ibid., 82.

[4] Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Tischreden [Table Talk] vol. 3. no. 3566b; 416, 24-26; 1537). Luther did not concur that excessive physical force taught young children to be more submissive. Rather Luther felt the kind of discipline which he received while growing up would tend to estrange a child. In his mind the Heavenly Father did not treat his children in such a manner. Although he did not readily agree with the style of discipline that took place during his early years, he did not in any way harbor a bitter or angry spirit.

[5] Oberman, Man Between God and the Devil, 92.

[6] Bainton, A Life of Martin Luther, 19-20. Bainton disregards the arguments which state that Luther suffered from depressant stages attributed to mere adolescence or that he suffered from manic depression. To Bainton these attributive causes seem to overlook some obvious facts. Luther suffered from these depression stages throughout his entire adult life. It was not merely a physical stage related to adolescence. Nor could it have been manic depression for the positions which Luther held proved that he "exhibited a prodigious and continuous capacity" to work competently. For Bainton the plausibility of these arguments is virtually nonexistent.

[7] Oberman, Man Between God and the Devil, 87-88. Speculation has hovered around Luther's periods of intense inner struggle. Luther once reminisced of how he had stolen a nut and received a beating from his mother which drew blood. Psychoanalysts have propounded that Luther's life-long traumatic experiences were due to the fact that his parents used physical force during his childhood, therefore rendering him mentally and emotionally traumatized. However, according to Oberman this view has not sustained support largely in respect to Luther's relationship with his father, Hans who seemed to be the one to rule the house and his son, Martin. For during the times of Luther, women had far less influence than did the male. Oberman comments on the influence a mother would have on her son as “inconceivable or at least irrelevant. For this reason the features of Margaret Luder [Luther] have remained pale and undefined: a simple woman, uneducated and superstitious, nothing more." He goes on to give caution as to this type of psychoanalyzing Luther's background. He states, "Diagnoses of this kind are not only subject to changing scholarly trends but also owe part of their impact to the psychologizing mood of our times."

[8] Bainton, A Life of Martin Luther, 40.

[9] Ibid., 40.

[10] Oberman, Man Between God and the Devil, 93-94. The doctrine of Saint Anne derives from the idea of Immaculate Conception. In this idea Mary the mother of Jesus is thought to be conceived without any trace of original sin or inherited guilt. Therefore her mother, Saint Anne participates in the Virgin Mary (ie. Maryology) and consequently the virgin birth of Jesus Christ (ie. the Incarnation). Later Luther would regard this doctrine as contrary to Scripture. He is quoted as saying, "It also applies to St. Anne, whose feast is being celebrated today, that I cannot find a word about here in the Bible. I believe that God left this unmentioned so that we would not seek out new holy places, as we are doing now, running to and fro and thus losing sight of the true Savior, Jesus Christ." (Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke, vol. II. 475, 11-15; 1527). Luther's appeal to Saint Anne however was not uncommon in his day. Saint Anne was the patroness of miners and so Luther probably grew up with relative familiarity to her "presence." Oberman gives insight into Luther's invocation of Saint Anne in that his vow was grounded in the religious milieu of his day. He comments that "[t]he very normalcy of [Luther's] reaction later made both his critical evaluation and his Evangelical solution intelligible, viable, and liberating to so many.

[11] Ibid., 92-93. Oberman observes that Luther's current environment was responsible for much of his decision to pursue the monastic lifestyle. However, he does not readily deny the fact that it was in fact Luther's "individual decision" to enter the monastery. His current situation and childhood upbringing did not necessitate or direct him to the monastic life. He observes that Martin was the only Luther child to wear the cowl. Oberman would not say that Luther’s "thunderstorm experience" was “the” determining factor. Rather, in retrospect Luther's current circumstances played a vital role in his pursuit of becoming a monk. One has to remember that making such a vow was not uncommon in Luther's day and age. What he had been taught while growing up was in sync with the religious temperature of that time.

[12] Bainton, A Life of Martin Luther, 25. Luther himself affirmed the fact that his "lightning" experience was a divine call. It was a call that he could not avoid. Bainton surmises that Luther could not break this "vow" lest he be considered disobedient. Yet, this experience was against Luther's will and that he "under divine constraint" was compelled to take the path towards monasticism.

[13] Ibid., 27. According to Bainton the reason for Luther's pursuit of the monastic life was a reason similar to everyone else who pursued the same lifestyle. It was to save his soul and find peace with God. The way of the Catholic Church brought Luther absolutely no satisfaction or respite for his raging soul. Therefore, another prescription was required which for Luther resulted as life in a monastery.

[14] Ibid., 34. Bainton quotes Luther in reference to his strict adherence to such drastic procedures. "I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I. All my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers, reading, and other work."

[15] Ibid., 36-38.

[16] Ibid., 39.

[17] Oberman, Man Between God and the Devil, 101-02. Johannes von Staupitz was a dear close friend to Luther. Luther referred to Staupitz as in Christo suavissimo Patri, (Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Briefwechse [Correspondence], vol. l, 1.257, 2;25 Nov 1518) or "most beloved father in Christ." When Staupitz died on December 28, 1524, Luther was devastated. According to Oberman the pain was so sharp that Luther never referred to Staupitz for seven years. It was not until his paternal father, Hans died on May 29, 1530 did Luther begin to talk about Staupitz once again. The impact which Staupitz left made an indelible impression upon Luther which would last a lifetime.

[18] Bainton, A Life of Martin Luther, 16. Luther was devoutly religious. Religion characterized his life. The most agonizing tribulations in his life which have captivated many his biographers were merely to Luther trivial compared to his "inner upheavals of his questing after God." Luther felt as if could not satisfy God in any way. The justice of God to him was always damning and condemning. There was never a moment was the righteousness of God was not being carried out. For Luther this presence was continual.

[19] Ibid., 39-40.

[20] James Atkinson, Martin Luther and the Birth of Protestantism (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1968), 150. Concerning Luther's ninety-five theses Atkinson remarks, "These Ninety-five Theses are strangely uncoordinated, rather remote and academic, not well thought out, even disappointing, compared with the mighty writings whose thunder was to reverberate throughout Christendom. Luther was quite shocked when the matter was taken out of his hands, and what had been intended as an academic disputation among scholars was literally shouted from the house-tops. He grumbled and said that if it had been a criticism of indulgences they wanted he could have written a proper one, but that had not been his purpose. It should always be remembered that the Theses are pithy aphoristic Latin paradoxes, such as were normal to academics discussing issues at universities."

[21] The sale of indulgences was not allowed in electoral Saxony. The reason being was Frederick, Saxony’s elector prohibited Teztel from distributing them. Teztel’s actions were directed by Albert, the elector of neighboring Mainz. It was Teztel’s action which troubled Luther and led to the eventual posting on the Castle Church doors at Wittenberg.

[22] Ibid., 142. "Indulgences do not mean the same thing to a modern Roman Catholic as they did to a contemporary of Luther's, or to a man a thousand years before Luther. Indulgences were not always discreditable. In the early Church, lapse into sin involved separation from the fellowship. Re-admission was gained by public confession before the congregation and true repentance shown by certain 'satisfaction', a word found as early as Tertullian (d. 220) and Cyprian (d. 258). These satisfactions might take the form of fasting, or alms-giving, or the manumission of a slave, depending on the nature of the sin and the status of the sinner, but they were always imposed by the congregation in the interests of the sinner and for his salvation. The nature of the satisfaction was always open to mitigation or even abolition on merciful grounds, if the congregation thought fit, in the light of a penitent's sincerity, or sickness, or any other material or spiritual change in his condition. These gracious and pastoral mitigations were the honourable beginning of the system which came to be known as indulgences and they must be reckoned as sound psychological and spiritual practice."

[23] Bainton, A Life of Martin Luther, 15. Luther had a deafening impact upon the Reformation, the reason being was that it added to the disintegrating milieu which had already begun long before Luther arrived on the scene. The temperature was ideal. Nationalism was breaking down the political ties of the day while the Reformation broke down the religious. The Roman Catholic Church was corrupt with its offices being characterized by the "secularized, flippant, frivolous, sensual, magnificent, and unscrupulous." The political, social, and religious scene was divinely orchestrated for the arrival of Martin Luther. It was this man who changed everything.

[24] Loewenich, Walther von, Martin Luther: The Man and His Work (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982), 121.