Peter Lombard's Sentences emphasized Augustine, whom Luther regarded highly, but did so in a very scholastic philosophical manner, with which Luther felt at odds. Luther's assignment as a young student was to write marginal notes on this benchmark text. On the margins of Lombard's book Luther railed against scholasticism, especially that which was influenced by Aristotle. He complained that philosophic theology was not true theology but mere speculation not based on Scripture.
At the center of Luther's belief was the quest for salvation; the doctrine of justification was put forward as the main theological tool enabling believers to apprehend God and our souls accurately. He complained that the scholastic doctrine of human perfectibility was untrue. He preferred conceiving of sin in more dramatic, existential terms, although at this early stage he still held to the idea of the freedom of the human will.
When studying a theologian's teaching it is sometimes tempting to ignore the role of development as the individual matured. We usually assume a thinker had always maintained what he or she taught when they were at their so-called peak. It is more informative to view beliefs dynamically, closely noting how and why changes of thought were made over time.
Once someone who knew me as a young student of 21 years accused me later of being inconsistent with my early views of the Bible. They said I departed from an inerrant view of Scripture, as true in all matters scientific, philosophical and historical, to the view of an authoritative Scripture in terms of faith. This younger version of myself spoke with conviction of a perfect Scripture. However, after studying the Bible critically, learning a variety of interpretative methods, I concluded that Scripture was reliable and trustable to do what it was intended to establish an authentic relationship to God.
My friend's accusation of inconsistency challenged me to ask whether I was theologically fickle or positively developing and responding to God's work in my life. What was I to make of my heartfelt earlier beliefs? There is something unseemly in effortlessly dropping old beliefs without in some way honouring their intention and function in our lives. Amos the prophet chided the Moabites over the sin of burning to lime the bones of the king of Moab (Amos 2:1), in effect pouring lye on dead men's bones. Through this symbol I have to come to see that callously discarding our early beliefs, opinions that were once filled with life, dishonours the formative process of our spiritual growth. While in the past I have often failed to honour the development of my beliefs, my current desire is to include the best parts of early convictions in my new faith configurations and transcend them through more adequate models and explanations. How and why I changed my view is more important than merely stating that my later self contradicted my early beliefs.
Reading Lohse's historical perspective on Luther confirmed the historical, developmental approach. Luther's changes were gradual and the product of much thinking, comparing of sources, prayer and other personal and historical influences.
Lohse summarized some of young Luther's thought:
In general, it should be said of Luther's theological position
in this early period that the texts, when read by themselves, do not
yet allow us to detect a later Reformation theology. Most importantly,
they contain no Reformation doctrine of justification. Yet it is clear
that at several important points Luther was abandoning the framework
of late medieval Occamist theology, above all its concept of sin. It
is particularly against the Occamist definition of the relation of philosophy
and theology that Luther was striking out on his own, and in doing so
gleaned support from Augustine but also from biblical statements. Equally
significant is his comprehensive criticism of certain aspects in the
church, including his own monastic form of existence. Deeper theological
foundation for this criticism was of course still lacking. (Lohse, 50)
Luther was suspicious of an epistemological theology that relied on human perception (natural theology). He advocates for a theology based on the revelation of Christ in Scripture:
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. (Rom.1:20) ... He deserves
to be a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest
things of God seen through suffering and the cross... A theology of
glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls a
thing what it actually is... That wisdom which sees the invisible things
of God in works perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded and
hardened. (LW vol. 1, 52-53)
What Luther may not have chosen to remember was that he was trained to think critically, argue logically and make fine distinctions due to his training in the scholastics and Aristotle. Even a method of theology, which he ultimately declared spurious, was instrumental in formulating his Reformation beliefs.
Young Luther relied on Augustine when he taught that knowledge of God and knowledge of Soul are two parts of one thing. Later Calvin began his Institutes making mention of the same bifocal vision of theology. At one time I construed this relationship as the knowledge of the self leading to the knowledge of God. This way of framing it is probably influenced by natural theology, and a good dose of New Age and psychological humanism, with which Luther and Calvin would not necessarily agree. I argued for self-knowledge rather than a knowledge before God. Lohse clarifies Luther:
Knowledge of God and the self are to be gained only in mutual
relation. It is not true that for Luther knowledge of self, say, would
first be necessary in order to arrive at knowledge of God. Rather, knowledge
of self is attained together with knowledge of God, just as true
knowledge of self is at the same time knowledge of God. (Lohse,
41)
My psychological spin on self-knowledge twisted the spirituality of Protestantism into a convenient New Age cultural form. From my earlier perspective, obsessively paying attention to every inner movement of my psyche resulted in a face-to-face encounter with God. This conviction declared that the self is, without qualification, God. Unfortunately, I hadn't learned as yet that the self I was observing was an ego-produced analytical self, not the self re-created by the Spirit of Christ the Christ Self.
This new view of the self can only be apprehended through something like a theology of the Cross. This more theologically developed perspective confesses that I am a sinner redeemed by grace learning to live in the power of the Spirit. The hope for this self is that progressively it will be restored to its original image in Christ. This conviction makes more sense of my ambivalent, paradoxical egocentrism and yet allows me to maintain self-respect and hope for gradual change.
Like Luther, I am learning to be suspicious when my culturally conditioned philosophy becomes the heart and soul of what I think about God and myself instead of relying on God's revelation in Christ, especially Christ crucified. My theological development from literalistic orthodoxy to a culturally determined liberalism and back to a chastened experiential approach grounded in faith has been hard won but extremely satisfying. To return to an earlier theme in this diary, how do I include and transcend my cultural liberalism without dishonouring my spiritual progress? I am thankful that I was led to practice self-observation instead of being oblivious to the unconscious. I am grateful to C.G. Jung and others for their training. I have however transcended the view of equating the self, even the higher Self, with God pure and simple and am extremely hopeful that Luther's paradox that I am simultaneously a sinner who is completely forgiven and seen by God through the lens of Christ will sustain me.