Concordia Theological Quarterly

Concordia Theological Quarterly

teach the faithful, reach lost, and care for all. Forming servants in Jesus Christ who CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY THEOLOGICAL CONCORDIA CONCORDIA Fort Wayne, IN 46825-4996 Fort Wayne, 6600 North Clinton Street THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Volume 84 Number 1–2 January/April 2020 Christology as Basis for Lutheran Theology Aaron M. Moldenhauer Jan/Apr 2020 Double Truth? Roland F. Ziegler Illumination, Healing, and Redirection Angus Menuge The Challenge of Karl Barth’s Doctrine of the Word of God Jack D. Kilcrease Luther on the Fulfillment of the Law Brian T. German 84:1–2 Fellowship in Its Necessary Context ORGANIZATION Berne, IN 46711 NON-PROFIT NON-PROFIT Permit No. 43 U.S. Postage Jonathan G. Lange PAID Praying the Psalms with Jesus and His Body Thomas M. Winger Contraception: An Embryo’s Point of View Donna J. Harrison US ISSN 0038-8610 CTQ Cover Jan-April 2020.indd 1 3/13/2020 2:31:13 PM Concordia Theological Quarterly Concordia Theological Quarterly, a continuation of The Springfielder, is a theological journal of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, published for its ministerium by the faculty of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Editor: David P. Scaer ([email protected]) Associate Editor: Charles A. Gieschen ([email protected]) Assistant Editor: Benjamin T.G. Mayes ([email protected]) Book Review Editor: Peter J. Scaer ([email protected]) Members of the Editorial Committee Adam C. Koontz, John G. Nordling, and Lawrence R. Rast Jr. Editorial Assistant: Daniel S. Broaddus The Faculty James G. Bushur Naomichi Masaki Ryan M. Tietz Carl C. Fickenscher II Benjamin T.G. Mayes Klaus Detlev Schulz Charles A. Gieschen John G. Nordling William C. Weinrich Paul J. Grime John T. Pless Dean O. Wenthe Gifford A. Grobien Jeffrey H. Pulse Don C. Wiley Arthur A. Just Jr. Lawrence R. Rast Jr. Roland F. Ziegler Adam C. Koontz Robert V. Roethemeyer Gary W. Zieroth Cameron A. MacKenzie David P. Scaer Walter A. Maier III Peter J. Scaer Concordia Theological Quarterly (CTQ) is indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals and abstracted in Old Testament Abstracts and New Testament Abstracts. CTQ is also indexed in the ATLA Religion Database® and included in the full-text ATLASerials® (ATLAS®) collection. Both are products of the American Theological Library Association, 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60606, (E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.atla. com). It is also indexed in the International Bibliography of Periodical Literature on the Humanities and Social Sciences (www.gbv.de). Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Scripture are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Manuscripts submitted for publication should conform to the Chicago Manual of Style and are subject to peer review and editorial modification. Please visit our website at www.ctsfw.edu/CTQ for more information. Previous articles, Theological Observers, and Book Reviews can be accessed electronically at media.ctsfw.edu. The advertisement of books in CTQ does not imply endorsement of the books or theological agreement with their contents. Subscription Information CTQ is published for January/April and July/October. The annual subscription rate is $30.00 within the United States, $35.00 (U.S.) in Canada, and $45.00 (U.S.) elsewhere. All changes of address, subscription payments, subscription cancellations, and other correspondence should be e-mailed to [email protected] or sent to Concordia Theological Quarterly, 6600 North Clinton Street, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825. CTQ is printed and shipped by Mignone Communications, a Division of EP Graphics, Inc., Berne, Indiana. ©2020 Concordia Theological Seminary • US ISSN 0038-8610 CTQ Cover Jan-April 2020.indd 2 3/13/2020 2:31:13 PM CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Volume 84:1–2 January/April 2020 Table of Contents Christology as Basis for Lutheran Theology Aaron M. Moldenhauer ................................................................................... 3 Double Truth? Daniel Hofmann and the Discussion on the Relation of Theology and Philosophy Roland F. Ziegler ............................................................................................ 23 Illumination, Healing, and Redirection: A Lutheran Philosophy of Reason Angus Menuge ................................................................................................ 39 The Challenge of Karl Barth’s Doctrine of the Word of God Jack D. Kilcrease ............................................................................................. 59 Luther on the Fulfillment of the Law: Five Theses for Contemporary Luther Studies Brian T. German ............................................................................................. 83 Fellowship in Its Necessary Context: The Doctrine of the Church and the Overseas Theses of 1961 Jonathan G. Lange ........................................................................................ 101 Praying the Psalms with Jesus and His Body Thomas M. Winger ...................................................................................... 119 Contraception: An Embryo’s Point of View Donna J. Harrison ........................................................................................ 137 Theological Observer ................................................................................................. 161 The History and Goal of the Concordia Commentary Series Walter Arthur Maier II (June 14, 1925–October 24, 2019) in memoriam “Claiming Christian Freedom to Discuss Abortion Together” The Law is Good Book Reviews ............................................................................................................... 181 Books Received ............................................................................................................ 191 CTQ 84 (2020): 3–21 Christology as Basis for Lutheran Theology1 Aaron M. Moldenhauer The Leipzig Debate of 1519, among other things, solidified ecclesial authority as a central question between Martin Luther and Catholic theologians. Indulgences, the topic of Luther’s “Ninety-Five Theses,” were an afterthought at Leipzig; the cursory discussion on indulgences near the conclusion of the Leipzig Debate revealed a great deal of commonality between the debaters. However, this common ground mattered little by the end of the debate. Already before Leipzig, the question of authority had become central, and that question was firmly established as the heart of the conversation and the dividing point at Leipzig. That move proved significant, as Leipzig and its aftermath set the terms of the conversation for the following decades. Ecclesial and papal authority remained a central starting point— perhaps the central starting point—of theological dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics throughout Luther’s life. In the last years of his life, Luther objected to the pope’s claim to have authority over a council, and to the pope’s maneuvering to determine who would attend the council.2 One could ask how the Reformation might have gone differently if there were a different starting point for the conversation between Lutherans and Rome. Rather than drift into virtual history, here I aim to analyze something concrete: a different way of approaching theology that Luther laid out in his later years. Luther puts forth Christology as a basis and starting point for theology. But to clear the way for that argument, I will first identify and set aside some paradigmatic notions about Luther in order to consider elements of Luther’s thought that do not fit within this paradigm. Several axioms about Luther function as a kind of paradigm in Luther studies. Luther, as everyone knows, was not a systematic theologian. Luther rejects scholastic theology and philosophy. His works are reactionary, determined by the circumstances around Luther and the opponents he addresses. These axioms are points so well established in the field that no evidence is required or sought for them. Since these are agreed-upon basic principles for studying Luther, they shape the 1 An earlier version of this paper was read at the 42nd Annual Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, January 14–16, 2019. 2 Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church 1532–1546, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 357–361. Aaron M. Moldenhauer is Assistant Professor of Theology at Concordia University Wisconsin in Mequon, Wisconsin. He can be contacted at aaron.moldenhauer @cuw.edu. 4 Concordia Theological Quarterly 84 (2020) methods by which we study Luther and dictate the kinds of questions we put to Luther studies. That is, since Luther’s works are reactionary, Luther studies typically begin by framing the particular controversy Luther is participating in at the moment. Often this framing simply takes Luther’s word for what his opponents say rather than read those opponents in their own words. Since Luther rejects scholasticism, scholars do not read the scholastics, and see no need to analyze them or look for points of continuity with them in Luther’s thought. And, since Luther is not a systematic theologian, scholars do not bother to look for elements of systematic thought in Luther. Taken together, these points function like a paradigm in Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of the history of science. They constitute an agreed-upon,

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    196 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us