Explanation of the Ninety-Five Theses LW 31:79-252
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses LW 31:79-252 Introduction Luther’s detailed Explanations of the Ninety-five Theses is one of the most important documents written during his formative years, for it was written and revised over a period of several months and illustrates how inexorably his doctrine of justification by faith alone was compelling him to break with the past. His new evangelical convictions, when applied to the indulgence traffic, had brought him into conflict with his superiors whose authority he still respected with sincere humility. Both he and his opponents, however, now viewed the question of indulgences in a broader theological and ecclesiastical context. In explaining his theses Luther now applied his newly developed “theology of the cross,” already enunciated in The Heidelberg Disputation, and challenged the authority of the church when it was in opposition to this new theology. His opponents correctly pointed to his deviations from scholastic theology and his actions in defiance of ecclesiastical authorities. Notable throughout the Explanations is Luther’s strong inner conflict, already voiced in his Preface to a German Theology. He writes respectfully of the pope but questions his primacy as bishop of Rome; he quotes the church fathers and canon law but treats the Bible as the primary – but not yet sole – authority in religious matters; he recognizes the ultimate authority of general church councils in matters of faith but opposes the burning of heretics, as was done at the Council of Constance; he still accepts purgatory and “the treasure of the church” but interprets them in an evangelical fashion; he dislikes tumult and disobedience but asks in unmistakable terms for a reformation of the church. Luther planned his Explanations late in 1517, especially since he had learned that his opponents were misinterpreting a number of his statements. He was working on it early in 1518 and was ready to publish it in February. Its publication was held up, however, by the fact that Bishop Hieronymus Schulz (Scultetus), his superior, forbade it. Despite this prohibition, he turned the manuscript over to his publisher in April, but his trip to Heidelberg postponed its publication. Having promised Staupitz at Heidelberg that he would complete it, he resumed work on it after his return to Wittenberg. The revised form was finally published toward the end of August, 1518. Luther then sent copies and accompanying letters to his three ecclesiastical superiors, Bishop Schulz [WA, Br, 1,138-140], Vicar Staupitz [WA 1,525-527], and Pope Leo X [WA 1,527-529]. The pope received his copy while initiating the formal process against Luther. Although it in no way altered the pope’s intentions, it greatly clarified the issues at stake in the indulgence controversy. The Explanations, written in Latin, was first published by Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg. The following English translation is based on this copy as edited in WA 1,525-628. It was published in German for the first time in the Leipzig Edition. This translation was included in volume 18, pages 299-533 of Dr. Martin Luther’s sämmtliche Schriften, edited by Johann Georg Walch (24 vols., Halle, 1740-1753), but the one in St.L. 18, 102-269 was made from the Latin in WA. The German translation in MA3 1,142-295 was based on the German in volume 18 of Walch’s edition, but the editor collated it with the Latin in WA and incorporated the corrections in the latter made by Theodor Brieger in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XVII, 175ff. Cf. W. Kohler, Dokumente zum Ablassstreit (Leipzig, 1903), and Otto Clemen, “Beitrage zur Lutherforschung,” Festschrift für Theodor Brieger (1912). Explanations of the Ninety-five Theses or Explanations of the Disputation Concerning the Value of Indulgences Declaration Because this is a theological disputation, I shall repeat here the declaration usually made in the schools in order that I may pacify the individuals who, perhaps, are offended by the simple text of the disputation. First, I testify that I desire to say or maintain absolutely nothing except, first of all, what is in the Holy Scriptures and can be maintained from them; and then what is in and from the writings of the church fathers and is accepted by the Roman church and preserved both in the canons and the papal decrees. But if any proposition cannot be proved or disproved from them I shall simply maintain it, for the sake of debate, on the basis of the judgment of reason and experience, always, however, without violating the judgment of any of my superiors in these matters. I add one consideration and insist upon it according to the right of Christian liberty, that is, that I wish to refute or accept, according to my own judgment, the mere opinions of St. Thomas, Bonaventura, or other scholastics or canonists 2 which are maintained without text and proof. I shall do this according to the advice of Paul to ªtest everything, hold fast to that which is goodº [I Thess. 5:21], although I know the feeling of Thomists who want St. Thomas to be approved by the church in everything. The weight of St. Thomas' authority is known well enough. From this declara tion I believe that it is made sufficiently clear that I can err, but also that I shall not be considered a heretic for that reason, no matter how much those who think and wish differently should rage or be consumed with anger. 1 When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” [Matt. 4:17], he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance. This I assert and in no way doubt. 1. Nevertheless, I shall prove the thesis for the sake of those who are uninformed, first from the Greek word metanoiei=te itself, which means ªrepentº and could be translated more exactly by the Latin transmentamini, which means ªassume another mind and feel ing, recover one's senses, make a transition from one state of mind to another, have a change of spiritº; so that those who hitherto have been aware of earthly matters may now know the spiritual, as the Apostle says in Rom. 12 [:2], ªBe transformed by the renewal of your mind.º By this recovery of one's senses it happens that the sinner has a change of heart and hates his sin. It is evident, however, that this recovery or hatred of oneself should involve one's whole life, according to the passage, ªHe who hates his soul in this life , preserves it for eternal lifeº [Matt. 10:39]. And again, ªHe who does not take his cross and follow me, is not worthy of meº [Matt. 10:38]. And in the same chapter, ªI have not come to bring peace, but a swordº [Matt. 10:34]. In Matt. 5[:4], ªBlessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.º And Paul in Romans 6 and 8 and in many other places orders us to mortify the flesh and members of the body which are upon earth. In Gal. 5[:24] he teaches us to crucify the flesh with its lustful desires. In II Corinthians 6 he says, ªLet us show ourselves in much patience, in many fastings, etc.º [Cf. II Cor. 6:4 -5]. I produce these citations so extensively because I am dealing with those who are unacquainted with our teachings. 2. I shall prove this thesis also according to reason. Since Christ is the master of the spirit, not of the letter, and since his words are life and spirit [John 6:63], he must teach the kind of repentance which is done in spirit and in truth, but not that which the most arrogant hypocrites could do openly by distorting their faces in fasts and by praying in streets and heralding their giving of alms [Matt. 6:16]. Christ must teach a repentance, I say, which can be done in every walk of life, a repentance which the king in purple robes, the priest in his elegance, and the princes in their dignity can do just as well as the monk in his rituals and the mendicant in his poverty, just as Daniel and his companions did in Babylon [Dan. 1 and 3]. For the teaching of Christ must apply to all men, that is, to men in every walk of life. 3. We pray throughout our whole life and we must pray ªforgive us our debtsº [Matt. 6:12]; therefore, we repent throughout our whole life and are displeased with ourselves, unless anyone may be so foolish as to think that he must pretend to pray for the forgiveness of debts. For the debts for which we are commanded to pray are real and not to be treated lightly; and even if they were venial, we could not be saved unless they were remitted. 2 This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as ad- ministered by the clergy. I assert and examine this thesis also. 1. I assert it, first, because sacramental penance is temporal and cannot be done all the time; otherwise one would have to speak with the priest continually and do nothing else but confess one's sins and perform the satisfaction which has been imposed. Therefore sacramental penance cannot be the cross which Christ bids us bear [Matt. 16:24]; nor is it a mortification of the passions of the flesh. 2. Sacramental penance is only external and presupposes inward penance without which it has no value. But inward penance can exist without the sacramental.