What do you think?
Rate this book
Lutero e a Teologia da Cruz: A ruptura teológica de Martinho Lutero
A theologia crucis de Lutero não é uma doutrina abstrata de Deus, mas uma teologia prática da vida cristã, moldada segundo a vida e morte de Cristo, que favorece a humildade, a fé e o amor ao próximo. Ela é um meio fundamentalmente antiespeculativo, antiteórico de conceber e moldar a vida cristã, que envolve a "centralização normativa" da vida na cruz de Cristo. "McGrath deu notável contribuição para o problema dos estudos de Lutero, com seu livro lúcido, informado e informativo." - Journal of Theological Studies "É restaurador examinar Lutero e a Teologia da Cruz, de Alister McGrath, e constatar como um trabalho incondicionalmente teológico em seu foco pode ser rigorosamente histórico (...) um livro de impressionante erudição destacado ao mesmo tempo por uma clareza de expressão rara em obras dessa natureza (...) o estudo magisterial de McGrath (...) apresenta temas tradicionais sob foco histórico." - Journal of Ecclesiastical History "É um importante estudo da teologia de Lutero, que deve ser consultado por todos que ensinam a Reforma. Uma realização impressionante quanto à sofisticação teológica que situa McGrath como um dos notáveis eruditos de Lutero. Seus argumentos são densos e exibem completo domínio dessa erudição." - Journal of Religious History
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
11 people are currently reading
205 people want to read
About the author
Alister E. McGrath
457 books503 followersAlister Edgar McGrath is a Northern Irish theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford, and is Professor of Divinity at Gresham College. He was previously Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King's College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture, Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and was principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, until 2005. He is an Anglican priest and is ordained within the Church of England.
Aside from being a faculty member at Oxford, McGrath has also taught at Cambridge University and is a Teaching Fellow at Regent College. McGrath holds three doctorates from the University of Oxford, a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History.
McGrath is noted for his work in historical theology, systematic theology, and the relationship between science and religion, as well as his writings on apologetics. He is also known for his opposition to New Atheism and antireligionism and his advocacy of theological critical realism. Among his best-known books are The Twilight of Atheism, The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, and A Scientific Theology. He is also the author of a number of popular textbooks on theology.
Aside from being a faculty member at Oxford, McGrath has also taught at Cambridge University and is a Teaching Fellow at Regent College. McGrath holds three doctorates from the University of Oxford, a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History.
McGrath is noted for his work in historical theology, systematic theology, and the relationship between science and religion, as well as his writings on apologetics. He is also known for his opposition to New Atheism and antireligionism and his advocacy of theological critical realism. Among his best-known books are The Twilight of Atheism, The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, and A Scientific Theology. He is also the author of a number of popular textbooks on theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
April 29, 2012
(This review was submitted as a class project.)
McGrath plunges into the formidable mass of Luther scholarship to reach his own conclusions regarding the nature and date of Luther’s theological breakthrough and the relation of that breakthrough to his distinctive theology: the theologia crucis. He concludes that the precise point on which Luther broke past the late medieval theological systems was in his discovery of the new meaning of iustitia Dei. McGrath takes upon himself two tasks in this regard. First, he seeks to demonstrate that all of Luther’s thought up to this breakthrough fits within the existing paradigms of late medieval theology. Second, he contends that the later theologia crucis was the natural result of working out the implications of his breakthrough. McGrath dates the breakthrough at 1515, and the terminus of his investigation between 1518 and 1519 with the development of the theologia crucis.
McGrath details three great influences on Luther’s early thought. The first was the studia humanitatis. This is significant because of its rejection of scholasticism and the insistence on returning to original sources, including Scripture. Also, through their efforts, there was a revival of the study of biblical languages and the publication of critical editions of ancient sources. The second great influence was the via moderna. McGrath demonstrates that Luther’s three great teachers at Erfurt and Wittenberg—Nathin, Arnoldi, and Staupitz—were adherents to this school. Their distinctive contribution to Theology was the concept of the two wills of God, the potentia absoluta and the potentia ordinate. From this distinction came the idea that God could impose limitations on himself, particularly important in the establishment of a soteriological pactum with man. This concept of a divine-human pactum framed Luther’s early thought. It meant that God was willing to ascribe merit to human deeds which would otherwise have no merit outside of the pactum. Salvation, then, begins with God who establishes the pactum; then, so long a man does quod in se est, God is obligated to save him. Luther’s existential Andfechtung arises from the inability to know if one has ever truly done quod in se est. Finally, Luther is influenced by the Augustinian Order and the late medieval tendency within that Order to shift back toward the teachings of Augustine himself, such as the depravity of man and the necessity of grace.
Following this, Luther’s Dictata super Psalterium is examines with the goal of establishing when it was that Luther actually broke with medieval theology. McGrath places that break near the end of Luther’s lectures on Psalms or at the beginning of his lectures on Romans. His breakthrough comes when he realizes that the mercy of God is evident in the iustitia Dei precisely because its condemnation causes man to cry out to God for mercy, but this can only be perceived by humilitas fidei. Luther comes to see the humilitas fidei as a work of God and not something the sinner can produce. From this, Luther extracts the principle that God reveals his works abscondita sub contrariis. This thought, abstracted from his breakthrough regarding the iustitia Dei, leads Luther to his theologia crucis, where God is most completely revealed in the one event we would be least likely to look for him. Aufechtung must be viewed as ultimately originating from God, and it finds resolution at the cross.
Luther’s Theology of the Cross is a valuable addition to contemporary Luther scholarship. McGrath brings together a vast body of specialized literature along with his own understanding of the primary sources in dealing with a very focused and important piece of the theology of Martin Luther, and of the Reformation as a whole. It may be argued that he makes no significant new contribution to the field of Luther scholarship, other than his unique reconciliation of the data that has led to division of opinion as to the dating of his theological breakthrough, but it cannot be denied that his work is a valuable introduction and evaluation of current Luther scholarship.
McGrath’s approach is instructive. It is common to take Luther’s later theology and seek to trace it as early into his career as possible. However, the results of this approach can be misleading, since similarities of expression can arise from widely divergent perspectives. McGrath contends that Luther should be studied, not in reference to his mature theology, but in reference to late medieval theology. The burden of the Luther scholar is then to demonstrate at what point Luther broke from that complex matrix.
In this endeavor, McGrath shows himself more than capable, and provides valuable insight into the actual state of late medieval theology. Romanticized pictures of Luther’s break with Rome are shown to be based on too great an overgeneralization of catholic thought and at times are simply falsified. Here, also, McGrath demonstrates his own breadth of knowledge, stepping far beyond the suggested scope of his study as he stretches back into earlier eras of the church. Particularly noteworthy here is his development of the impact of Ciceronian thought and Roman Law on the development of ideas related to iustitia and the difficulty arising from imposing those ideas on the iustitia Dei.
McGrath’s writing can be highly technical, though he does often and quite helpfully summarize what he has argued. His summaries and recalls are arguably redundant, but nevertheless well-placed and intentional. He is sparse but effective in his use of illustrations and his development of aspects of Luther’s story are helpful as well. In all, he is both a skilled historian and a gifted writer.
One point of criticism: while dating Luther’s theological breakthrough to the period toward the end of Luther’s lectures on the Psalter and the beginning of his lectures on Romans, McGrath never introduces the possibility that Luther’s breakthrough at that point could be related to the change in content from one book to the other. It would make sense that his emphasis would be on humilitas fidei in the Psalms, bridging into his theological breakthrough regarding iustitia Dei as he entered the book of Romans. Not only does McGrath not take up this thesis, he, uncharacteristically, doesn’t even address it.
It is interesting to this reviewer that McGrath never breaks away from his role as historian and himself becomes a theologian. While keeping with the intention of his book, the theological substance of the material covered must have provided a great temptation in this regard. As a theologian, this reviewer would have liked to see McGrath indulge himself.
Since the rise of interest in Luther’s theologia crucis after the First World War, Luther studies have continued to multiply. McGrath may be thanked from bringing a new generation of English-speaking theologians and Church historians up to speed with much of the last century’s work.
McGrath plunges into the formidable mass of Luther scholarship to reach his own conclusions regarding the nature and date of Luther’s theological breakthrough and the relation of that breakthrough to his distinctive theology: the theologia crucis. He concludes that the precise point on which Luther broke past the late medieval theological systems was in his discovery of the new meaning of iustitia Dei. McGrath takes upon himself two tasks in this regard. First, he seeks to demonstrate that all of Luther’s thought up to this breakthrough fits within the existing paradigms of late medieval theology. Second, he contends that the later theologia crucis was the natural result of working out the implications of his breakthrough. McGrath dates the breakthrough at 1515, and the terminus of his investigation between 1518 and 1519 with the development of the theologia crucis.
McGrath details three great influences on Luther’s early thought. The first was the studia humanitatis. This is significant because of its rejection of scholasticism and the insistence on returning to original sources, including Scripture. Also, through their efforts, there was a revival of the study of biblical languages and the publication of critical editions of ancient sources. The second great influence was the via moderna. McGrath demonstrates that Luther’s three great teachers at Erfurt and Wittenberg—Nathin, Arnoldi, and Staupitz—were adherents to this school. Their distinctive contribution to Theology was the concept of the two wills of God, the potentia absoluta and the potentia ordinate. From this distinction came the idea that God could impose limitations on himself, particularly important in the establishment of a soteriological pactum with man. This concept of a divine-human pactum framed Luther’s early thought. It meant that God was willing to ascribe merit to human deeds which would otherwise have no merit outside of the pactum. Salvation, then, begins with God who establishes the pactum; then, so long a man does quod in se est, God is obligated to save him. Luther’s existential Andfechtung arises from the inability to know if one has ever truly done quod in se est. Finally, Luther is influenced by the Augustinian Order and the late medieval tendency within that Order to shift back toward the teachings of Augustine himself, such as the depravity of man and the necessity of grace.
Following this, Luther’s Dictata super Psalterium is examines with the goal of establishing when it was that Luther actually broke with medieval theology. McGrath places that break near the end of Luther’s lectures on Psalms or at the beginning of his lectures on Romans. His breakthrough comes when he realizes that the mercy of God is evident in the iustitia Dei precisely because its condemnation causes man to cry out to God for mercy, but this can only be perceived by humilitas fidei. Luther comes to see the humilitas fidei as a work of God and not something the sinner can produce. From this, Luther extracts the principle that God reveals his works abscondita sub contrariis. This thought, abstracted from his breakthrough regarding the iustitia Dei, leads Luther to his theologia crucis, where God is most completely revealed in the one event we would be least likely to look for him. Aufechtung must be viewed as ultimately originating from God, and it finds resolution at the cross.
Luther’s Theology of the Cross is a valuable addition to contemporary Luther scholarship. McGrath brings together a vast body of specialized literature along with his own understanding of the primary sources in dealing with a very focused and important piece of the theology of Martin Luther, and of the Reformation as a whole. It may be argued that he makes no significant new contribution to the field of Luther scholarship, other than his unique reconciliation of the data that has led to division of opinion as to the dating of his theological breakthrough, but it cannot be denied that his work is a valuable introduction and evaluation of current Luther scholarship.
McGrath’s approach is instructive. It is common to take Luther’s later theology and seek to trace it as early into his career as possible. However, the results of this approach can be misleading, since similarities of expression can arise from widely divergent perspectives. McGrath contends that Luther should be studied, not in reference to his mature theology, but in reference to late medieval theology. The burden of the Luther scholar is then to demonstrate at what point Luther broke from that complex matrix.
In this endeavor, McGrath shows himself more than capable, and provides valuable insight into the actual state of late medieval theology. Romanticized pictures of Luther’s break with Rome are shown to be based on too great an overgeneralization of catholic thought and at times are simply falsified. Here, also, McGrath demonstrates his own breadth of knowledge, stepping far beyond the suggested scope of his study as he stretches back into earlier eras of the church. Particularly noteworthy here is his development of the impact of Ciceronian thought and Roman Law on the development of ideas related to iustitia and the difficulty arising from imposing those ideas on the iustitia Dei.
McGrath’s writing can be highly technical, though he does often and quite helpfully summarize what he has argued. His summaries and recalls are arguably redundant, but nevertheless well-placed and intentional. He is sparse but effective in his use of illustrations and his development of aspects of Luther’s story are helpful as well. In all, he is both a skilled historian and a gifted writer.
One point of criticism: while dating Luther’s theological breakthrough to the period toward the end of Luther’s lectures on the Psalter and the beginning of his lectures on Romans, McGrath never introduces the possibility that Luther’s breakthrough at that point could be related to the change in content from one book to the other. It would make sense that his emphasis would be on humilitas fidei in the Psalms, bridging into his theological breakthrough regarding iustitia Dei as he entered the book of Romans. Not only does McGrath not take up this thesis, he, uncharacteristically, doesn’t even address it.
It is interesting to this reviewer that McGrath never breaks away from his role as historian and himself becomes a theologian. While keeping with the intention of his book, the theological substance of the material covered must have provided a great temptation in this regard. As a theologian, this reviewer would have liked to see McGrath indulge himself.
Since the rise of interest in Luther’s theologia crucis after the First World War, Luther studies have continued to multiply. McGrath may be thanked from bringing a new generation of English-speaking theologians and Church historians up to speed with much of the last century’s work.
March 12, 2021
What a fantastic, in-depth look at the development of Luther's thought from 1509 (when Luther began teaching) to 1518 (when Luther presented his "theology of the cross" at the Heidelberg Disputation).
This is not an introduction to the Reformation, but rather a fine-tuning of how we understand Luther's "theological breakthrough." Most of us have read Luther's recollection of that breakthrough in his preface to his collected Latin works in 1945, some three decades after the event itself; in that retelling he says he was wrestling with Paul in Romans 1:16-17, especially in regard to the phrase "the righteousness of God," and then realized this was a righteousness that we receive from God through faith. At that point, he famously asserts, "I felt that I was altogether born again and the very gates of paradise opened up before me."
This so-called "Tower Experience" is significant, but McGrath shows that it was part of a process with quite a lot of theological complexity. Luther was, after all, a scholar. According to McGrath, the German Reformer began with concepts of justification that were along the lines of the school of thought called the "Via Moderna," but between 1509 and 1518 he made the fateful leap from a faith originating in the sinner (ala the Via Moderna), to a faith originating in God and freely justifying the sinner. Even Luther's eventual "theology of the cross" seems to have roots in the tradition within the Augustinian order of emphasizing the suffering of Christ on Calvary.
This is not an introduction to the Reformation, but rather a fine-tuning of how we understand Luther's "theological breakthrough." Most of us have read Luther's recollection of that breakthrough in his preface to his collected Latin works in 1945, some three decades after the event itself; in that retelling he says he was wrestling with Paul in Romans 1:16-17, especially in regard to the phrase "the righteousness of God," and then realized this was a righteousness that we receive from God through faith. At that point, he famously asserts, "I felt that I was altogether born again and the very gates of paradise opened up before me."
This so-called "Tower Experience" is significant, but McGrath shows that it was part of a process with quite a lot of theological complexity. Luther was, after all, a scholar. According to McGrath, the German Reformer began with concepts of justification that were along the lines of the school of thought called the "Via Moderna," but between 1509 and 1518 he made the fateful leap from a faith originating in the sinner (ala the Via Moderna), to a faith originating in God and freely justifying the sinner. Even Luther's eventual "theology of the cross" seems to have roots in the tradition within the Augustinian order of emphasizing the suffering of Christ on Calvary.
October 27, 2017
This is an in-depth study of the historical and theological factors which led to Luther’s breakthrough in the early sixteenth century. McGrath is extremely thorough in his research and balanced in his conclusions, demonstrating Luther’s place within medieval theology and worldview. Of particular help to me was the book’s handling of the righteousness of God and righteousness of faith. McGrath also illuminates some of the more troubling aspects of Luther’s later theology.
Well worth the time in terms of understanding Luther’s methodology and theology.
Well worth the time in terms of understanding Luther’s methodology and theology.
October 13, 2019
I’m very impressed by this book. As far as I am concerned it has aged very well and it is a bit of a shame that McGrath discovered his knack for writing introductory books. This book is so erudite and clear at the same time and answers many questions that I have had on Luther’s relation to the via moderna and medieval theology for example. Recommended reading!
September 21, 2018
McGrath does a great job tracing the theological context of the late Medieval era. He shows Martin Luther's emphasis on the Gospel was a product of various currents such as the Via Moderna. However, he shows that people around Luther and their personal interaction with him most likely had a more profound influence. And his theological breakthrough wrestling with the "righteousness of God" happened as a process that took place over many years rather than a sudden breakthrough.
A short read, but challenging.
A short read, but challenging.
February 7, 2021
I confess my knowledge of Luther is more popular than scholarly, but I found the pacing and organization of this book made the development of the central idea seem almost an afterthought and rushed near the close. It felt like 75% of the book was setup and then the actual theology of the cross itself was more of a destination to reach than an area to explore. I did not dislike the book, but I felt what it did well was not what the author seemed to see as his desired main focus.
October 21, 2015
This is a detailed study of how Luther's ideas about God's way of working in the world evolved between 1509 and 1519. McGrath's careful work produced fresh results from ground that has been gone over almost ad infinitum by generations of scholars working with a small amount of contemporary testimony.
There is a special emphasis here on the link between Luther's revolutionary concept of the justice of God and his theology of the cross. McGrath sees the former as an aspect of the latter rather than as the central feature of Luther's thought.
Other themes that I found useful:
Luther learned from and retained aspects of the via moderna in which he was educated, while also reacting against it. Reading this section, I was struck by how much Luther's pre-"breakthrough" or "pre-Protestant" concept of salvation by faith alone resembles the modern evangelical concept, where a humble faith and recognition of sinful helplessness is the pre-condition (the only one) for receiving grace.
Luther used the concept of Deus absconditus ('the hidden God') in two different ways: God hidden in his revelation --supremely, on the Cross-- and God hidden behind his revelation --the God of absolute predestination. Modern Luther scholars tend to confuse the two, according to McGrath. He also believes that the second way --developed in the later controversy with Erasmus-- amounts to a betrayal of the theology of cross (2004, 167). But he doesn't develop this topic further.
For McGrath, Luther's key idea of his theologia crucis --namely, that God reveals himself through opposites (wisdom looks like foolishness, etc.)-- is "the most radical critique of the principle of analogy in theological discourse yet known" (159). At the same time, Luther brought analogy back in when he used marriage to illustrate salvation by faith alone. This was indeed a commonplace salvation analogy used by both Protestants and reform-minded Catholics (for example, it got the Archbishop of Toledo, Bartolomé Carranza, into trouble with the Spanish Inquisition). McGrath rightly points out that this analogy "far transcends any mere external or forensic imputation of righteousness" (174), a conclusion I became convinced of a few years ago while editing an early Spanish version of Luther's Freedom of the Christian.
McGrath briefly shows the powerful effect of the theology of the cross on the post-World War Two generation, citing Jurgen Moltmann's testimony: "A theology which did not speak of God in terms of the abandoned and crucified one would not have got through to us then" (180). This made me reflect on my own evangelical generation, which tends to quickly pass by the Cross to celebrate the Resurrection. We mostly have a theology of success, prosperity, and triumph; a "theology of glory", as Luther called it. We can hardly affirm with him: "Crux sola est nostra theologia".
December 30, 2013
I honestly was a little underwhelmed with this work. I began the book hoping that the writer would construct a thoroughgoing theology of Luther in terms of the Gospel and the cross of Christ, but that hope never really came to maturity. This work is more of an evolution of Luther’s thought on various aspects of the Gospel at various points. Much detail is devoted to the discussion of when various breakthroughs occurred in Luther’s life and much less time is spent dealing with the details of these various beliefs. I felt like I profited from the work nonetheless. I would recommend this work for students of historical theology or individuals who are trying to understand this oft-misunderstood reformer in greater detail.
July 20, 2016
A very scholarly but readable account of the development of Luther's Theology of the Cross. The only drawback is that it seems to jump too suddenly from Luther's new understanding of the "righteousness of God" meaning God making sinners righteous to Luther's more developed theology of the cross as represented by the Heidelberg disputation. This wound not be as much of a problem if the author didn't stress that the development of Luther's theology of the cross was a continuous development and not random fits and starts that don't fit together. The author's insistence on this didn't fit with the way it was presented in that area. Otherwise a fine study.
November 30, 2014
Много добро изследване (ползвам редакцията от 2011 - обложката по-горе показва по-старо издание, което е ревизирано в някои аспекти)още повече, че темата е една от по-тесните специализации на МакГрат и той е в течение на цялата сериозна литература в областта. Единственият му недостатък е сухостта на изложението и (поне за мен) прекалената наситеност с латински цитати и изрази - нещо типично за автора. Човек трябва наистина да се интересува от темата, за да се захване с книга като тази. Но за този, който попада в съответната категория прочита определено се отблагодарява.
September 1, 2016
A scholarly study of impressive depth yet of focused breadth. McGrath's research into the development of Luther's Theology of the Cross leads to some unexpected conclusions that challenge the popular notion of what Luther believed and when, but he leaves Luther's theology intact. We come away from this book with a more nuanced understanding of the path of Luther's development without sacrificing the awe and amazement of the final result.
April 1, 2021
Such a good and interesting book. McGrath is very technical and academic in this work, lots of Latin and German Theological terms throughout as it traces luther's breakthrough in his Theology from 1509 to 1518.
April 18, 2022
As with all of McGrath's books I wanted to like this more than I eventually did. I valued McGrath's teachings on Christian worldview at a church I attended when a new Christian over 30 years ago so, despite my criticisms below, I retain a soft spot for the author.
What I liked about the book was a clear and persuasive thesis that Luther was brought up under the influence of the via moderna and that older schemes of salvation, including those of the Church Fathers, and Augustinian versions of the via moderna, were not known to him. The via moderna set out a covenant scheme of salvation where man had to do what lay within him as the condition for benefitting from God's promises. That requirement was for man to humble himself. This was not a gift of God but a work and so Luther struggled with his inability to be sure he had been sufficiently humble to secure salvation.
McGrath's thesis on Luther's breakthrough is somewhat confusing. He shows convincingly that Luther's comments in his Dictata (his first set of lectures on the Psalms produced in 1514) do not show a change in understanding of God's righteousness, as needed for the Reformation doctrine of justification, but are better explained within the scheme of the via moderna. He thus disagrees with the thesis of Vogelsang that a change in Luther can be detected in his comments on Psalm 70 (71). Instead we do detect a change in understanding of the righteousness of God the following year in his lectures on Romans. It is therefore odd that McGraths considers Luther's breakthrough occurred at the beginning of 1515 in writing the later stages of the Dictata though no evidence is provided to back this up.
The following chapter looks at the development of Luther's Theology of the Cross. This chapter contains less literary evidence from Luther overall and so the conclusion that agrees with Vogelsang's thesis of a sea change in the exposition of Psalm 71 (72) is baffling. (Yes, you read those numbers right, I can't understand whether this is a typo or sloppiness or if Vogelsang posited two critical changes with successive psalms!).
Overall useful for the theological background, but not so much on Luther's theology.
What I liked about the book was a clear and persuasive thesis that Luther was brought up under the influence of the via moderna and that older schemes of salvation, including those of the Church Fathers, and Augustinian versions of the via moderna, were not known to him. The via moderna set out a covenant scheme of salvation where man had to do what lay within him as the condition for benefitting from God's promises. That requirement was for man to humble himself. This was not a gift of God but a work and so Luther struggled with his inability to be sure he had been sufficiently humble to secure salvation.
McGrath's thesis on Luther's breakthrough is somewhat confusing. He shows convincingly that Luther's comments in his Dictata (his first set of lectures on the Psalms produced in 1514) do not show a change in understanding of God's righteousness, as needed for the Reformation doctrine of justification, but are better explained within the scheme of the via moderna. He thus disagrees with the thesis of Vogelsang that a change in Luther can be detected in his comments on Psalm 70 (71). Instead we do detect a change in understanding of the righteousness of God the following year in his lectures on Romans. It is therefore odd that McGraths considers Luther's breakthrough occurred at the beginning of 1515 in writing the later stages of the Dictata though no evidence is provided to back this up.
The following chapter looks at the development of Luther's Theology of the Cross. This chapter contains less literary evidence from Luther overall and so the conclusion that agrees with Vogelsang's thesis of a sea change in the exposition of Psalm 71 (72) is baffling. (Yes, you read those numbers right, I can't understand whether this is a typo or sloppiness or if Vogelsang posited two critical changes with successive psalms!).
Overall useful for the theological background, but not so much on Luther's theology.
August 9, 2025
This was an interesting read and it gave me new things to think about in terms of how Luther’s theological theories formed, however I thought that in many ways the writing wassn’t as good as it could have been. However, I found this book immensely useful when thinking about the different theological theories that were prevalent at the time. For example, the way in which the author went and got dug into the via modera was very interesting. Confirming to me why the Protestant faith formed by Luther is based on falsehoods. For example when Luther writes in 1545 in the introduction to a book how he was angry with God because the suffering that people suffered was seen as the righteousness to which God released. However, then Luther understood that God gives us the gift of righteousness and we don’t;t have to do the gymnastics that the church set in place. But I find this quite a weak argument because the church to which Luther critises is undoubtedly Biblical. Therefore, I wish the author would have introduced some of Robert Bellarmine’s work and interacted with them, because from a Catholic perspective one would think that the arguments that he introduces destroy Luther, so I want to know why someone that is a prominent supported of Luther doesn’t find them convincing. Likewise, when the book deals with the matter of justification I believe that he does an excellent job at explaining the position of Luther, for example we get the famous commentary of Galatian’s 2:16 (“know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.”) This is from which Luther states “Righteousness is faith in Jesus Christ” which is true but Luther is missing something here. He is missing that we have got to show our faith in what we do. This is the problem with by faith alone, it justifies what I call the new aged Protestants to justify all kinds of unbiblical sins. It is therefore good that the author talks about the Pactum, but why doesn’t the book have a proper debate on this issue it should. And through this Pactum Good reveals himself, through the cross, and thus the sacraments. He is not hidden.
August 2, 2022
Luther’s Theology of the Cross
A rediscovery of the Gospel? Or a novelty?
The day October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther posted his Theses on Indulgences on the main north door of All Saints’ Church at Wittenberg, likely is larger in the imagination of Protestant faithful than in real life on that eve of the Feast of All Saints. Granted, all stories have to start somewhere. Given the cataclysmic rupture in the Church that followed, this story may as well begin there. And so, in Protestant lore, Luther – with eyes of fire and a hammer like Thor – rescues the Gospel with every blow against Castle Church door. As you might imagine, however, there’s more to the story.
According to scholarship, “the final decade of the fifteenth century witnessed a remarkable upsurge in reforming and renewing activity within the church.” Luther’s Theology of the Cross, Alister E. McGrath, Blackwell Publishers, p. 13. Luther was part of that impulse. And a medieval theologian tacking debate issues to the church door was a commonplace. To his credit, in light of the imposing collection of relics displayed at Castle Church – thus attracting a large crowd on the Feast of All Saints – Luther’s timing likely was intended to put more eyes on his notice.
More importantly, that day, Luther was still a Catholic theologian. He still fit within a particular late-medieval tradition within the fifteen-hundred-year-old church. Luther’s theses were fairly unremarkable. The notice on the door did not get much attention. Luther had not attacked the papacy or purgatory, for example. Later, even Luther admitted the question of indulgences was relatively insignificant. His real issue would be how a man is justified before God. Id. at 19. Notwithstanding the gravity of that subject, also to Luther’s credit, as late as early-1519, Luther still appreciated the importance of remaining in communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church:
"If, unfortunately, there are things in Rome which cannot be improved, there is not – nor can there be! – any reason for tearing oneself away from the church in schism. Rather, the worse things become, the more one should help her and stand by her, for by schism and contempt nothing can be mended."
Luther’s Theology of the Cross, p. 20, W.A. 2.72.35-37.
By mid-1519 and Luther’s disputation with Johannes Eck at Leipzig, Luther’s status as late-medieval Catholic theologian changed. His determination to remain in communion with the Church would give way to a new theology. New theology over justification would require a new ecclesiology to justify what before he called schism and contempt. During the interim year 1518, Christendom saw the emergence of a new term – theologia crucis or theology of the cross. After all, how could one go wrong making the cross of Jesus Christ the centerpiece of one’s understanding of the righteousness of God? That year helped fix in the mind of Martin Luther new theological insights. Ultimately, Luther’s novel ideas would separate him from Rome and gash the Roman Catholic Church, thus altering the course of Western Civilization in ways known only to God.
My use of the terms new and novel are repeated for emphasis. Despite the seeming centrality of the cross in Luther’s articulation of justification, any new doctrine must, of necessity, be error. This conclusion flows from the fact that the faith was once delivered to the saints. A Christian doctrine does not lie hidden for fifteen centuries, certainly not one as centrally important as justification. Who would not concede that point? Indeed, the thoughtful Protestant might turn the table and assert the same rule about certain peculiarly Catholic doctrines. Elsewhere, I write about the development of doctrine. Far from asserting novelty, the faithful Protestant must retort, Luther merely rediscovered the Gospel that lay hidden under a thousand years of medieval barnacles and institutional accretions. Did Luther invent a novelty? Or did Luther rediscover the Gospel?
Hopefully, every Christian can see that if Luther’s doctrine of justification is a novelty, it must be error. For the Protestant Reformation to have been justified (pun intended), Luther must have rediscovered and resurrected the true Gospel as taught by the Apostles and as recorded in Scripture. This rediscovery theory begs the question: When did the Church of Jesus Christ go off the rails (a question I’ve never seen satisfactorily answered)? Without getting sidetracked on that important question, suffice it to say, the only way Protestantism is a valid expression of the truth is for Luther to have unearthed the Pearl of Great Price that lay dormant for at least ten centuries (if not fourteen). If you’ve read this far, I believe you likely agree with Alister McGrath’s summary of the problem:
"Can the distinctive teachings of the Reformation, and supremely their chief article, that of justification, be considered to be truly catholic? If it can be shown that the chief teaching of the Reformation, the article by which the church stands or falls, was a theological novelty, unknown to the Christian church throughout the first fifteen hundred years of her existence, it will be clear that the Protestant claim to have reformed the church cannot be taken seriously: far from having reformed Christian doctrine, Luther would have deformed it to a point at which it could no longer be considered catholic or Christian."
Luther’s Theology of the Cross, pp. 23-24
All I’ve done here is attempt to set up the problem. I intend to write more about Luther and the doctrine of justification. Please accept this post as my halting attempt to get a running start at this Christendom-dividing subject.
https://withmyowneyes.blog
A rediscovery of the Gospel? Or a novelty?
The day October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther posted his Theses on Indulgences on the main north door of All Saints’ Church at Wittenberg, likely is larger in the imagination of Protestant faithful than in real life on that eve of the Feast of All Saints. Granted, all stories have to start somewhere. Given the cataclysmic rupture in the Church that followed, this story may as well begin there. And so, in Protestant lore, Luther – with eyes of fire and a hammer like Thor – rescues the Gospel with every blow against Castle Church door. As you might imagine, however, there’s more to the story.
According to scholarship, “the final decade of the fifteenth century witnessed a remarkable upsurge in reforming and renewing activity within the church.” Luther’s Theology of the Cross, Alister E. McGrath, Blackwell Publishers, p. 13. Luther was part of that impulse. And a medieval theologian tacking debate issues to the church door was a commonplace. To his credit, in light of the imposing collection of relics displayed at Castle Church – thus attracting a large crowd on the Feast of All Saints – Luther’s timing likely was intended to put more eyes on his notice.
More importantly, that day, Luther was still a Catholic theologian. He still fit within a particular late-medieval tradition within the fifteen-hundred-year-old church. Luther’s theses were fairly unremarkable. The notice on the door did not get much attention. Luther had not attacked the papacy or purgatory, for example. Later, even Luther admitted the question of indulgences was relatively insignificant. His real issue would be how a man is justified before God. Id. at 19. Notwithstanding the gravity of that subject, also to Luther’s credit, as late as early-1519, Luther still appreciated the importance of remaining in communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church:
"If, unfortunately, there are things in Rome which cannot be improved, there is not – nor can there be! – any reason for tearing oneself away from the church in schism. Rather, the worse things become, the more one should help her and stand by her, for by schism and contempt nothing can be mended."
Luther’s Theology of the Cross, p. 20, W.A. 2.72.35-37.
By mid-1519 and Luther’s disputation with Johannes Eck at Leipzig, Luther’s status as late-medieval Catholic theologian changed. His determination to remain in communion with the Church would give way to a new theology. New theology over justification would require a new ecclesiology to justify what before he called schism and contempt. During the interim year 1518, Christendom saw the emergence of a new term – theologia crucis or theology of the cross. After all, how could one go wrong making the cross of Jesus Christ the centerpiece of one’s understanding of the righteousness of God? That year helped fix in the mind of Martin Luther new theological insights. Ultimately, Luther’s novel ideas would separate him from Rome and gash the Roman Catholic Church, thus altering the course of Western Civilization in ways known only to God.
My use of the terms new and novel are repeated for emphasis. Despite the seeming centrality of the cross in Luther’s articulation of justification, any new doctrine must, of necessity, be error. This conclusion flows from the fact that the faith was once delivered to the saints. A Christian doctrine does not lie hidden for fifteen centuries, certainly not one as centrally important as justification. Who would not concede that point? Indeed, the thoughtful Protestant might turn the table and assert the same rule about certain peculiarly Catholic doctrines. Elsewhere, I write about the development of doctrine. Far from asserting novelty, the faithful Protestant must retort, Luther merely rediscovered the Gospel that lay hidden under a thousand years of medieval barnacles and institutional accretions. Did Luther invent a novelty? Or did Luther rediscover the Gospel?
Hopefully, every Christian can see that if Luther’s doctrine of justification is a novelty, it must be error. For the Protestant Reformation to have been justified (pun intended), Luther must have rediscovered and resurrected the true Gospel as taught by the Apostles and as recorded in Scripture. This rediscovery theory begs the question: When did the Church of Jesus Christ go off the rails (a question I’ve never seen satisfactorily answered)? Without getting sidetracked on that important question, suffice it to say, the only way Protestantism is a valid expression of the truth is for Luther to have unearthed the Pearl of Great Price that lay dormant for at least ten centuries (if not fourteen). If you’ve read this far, I believe you likely agree with Alister McGrath’s summary of the problem:
"Can the distinctive teachings of the Reformation, and supremely their chief article, that of justification, be considered to be truly catholic? If it can be shown that the chief teaching of the Reformation, the article by which the church stands or falls, was a theological novelty, unknown to the Christian church throughout the first fifteen hundred years of her existence, it will be clear that the Protestant claim to have reformed the church cannot be taken seriously: far from having reformed Christian doctrine, Luther would have deformed it to a point at which it could no longer be considered catholic or Christian."
Luther’s Theology of the Cross, pp. 23-24
All I’ve done here is attempt to set up the problem. I intend to write more about Luther and the doctrine of justification. Please accept this post as my halting attempt to get a running start at this Christendom-dividing subject.
https://withmyowneyes.blog
September 28, 2021
Re-reading one of my favourite theology books. Martin Luther’s insights into the crucified God and how it shows that the Christian God is one who dwells in suffering and shame has strengthened my faith in very difficult times.
What I like about this book is that it makes us go back in time and approach Luther as a late medieval scholar. Too many people make the mistake of looking back at Luther and superimposing their post-Reformation worldview onto him.
The book can be hard going at times as Alister McGrath patiently sets the scene and describes the theological context Luther was shaped by, and worked in. Lots of Latin words and phrases.
And finally the book makes me realise the amazing theological breakthrough that Luther achieved. Some 500 years later, it still feels fresh and awesome.
What I like about this book is that it makes us go back in time and approach Luther as a late medieval scholar. Too many people make the mistake of looking back at Luther and superimposing their post-Reformation worldview onto him.
The book can be hard going at times as Alister McGrath patiently sets the scene and describes the theological context Luther was shaped by, and worked in. Lots of Latin words and phrases.
And finally the book makes me realise the amazing theological breakthrough that Luther achieved. Some 500 years later, it still feels fresh and awesome.
Read
May 27, 2025"Ao comentar sobre Gálatas 2.16, Lutero, referindo-se à definição ciceriana de justiça, diz: 'Uma maravilhosa nova definição de justiça. Ela normalmente é descrita da seguinte maneira: "Justiça é uma virtude que confere a cada pessoa aquilo que lhe é devido" [iustitia est virtus reddens unicuique quod suum est]. Mas aqui diz: "Justiça é fé em Jesus Cristo" [fides Jhesu Christi].'"
Essas palavras refletem bem o desenvolvimento teológico de Lutero na sua fase mais jovem. De um monge medieval atormentado a um pastor que confia plenamente no Deus da cruz.
Essas palavras refletem bem o desenvolvimento teológico de Lutero na sua fase mais jovem. De um monge medieval atormentado a um pastor que confia plenamente no Deus da cruz.
April 16, 2019
**true rating 3.5
With historical acumen, Alister McGrath tackles one figure and topic that is filled to the brim with scholarship. He wisely limits himself to Martin Luther’s theological breakthrough: the emergence of the theologia crucis— the theology of the cross.
It’s a helpful overview, but it was at times repetitive. Large portions of the later chapters repeats in detail the arguments of previous chapters, which made reading a bit boring.
With historical acumen, Alister McGrath tackles one figure and topic that is filled to the brim with scholarship. He wisely limits himself to Martin Luther’s theological breakthrough: the emergence of the theologia crucis— the theology of the cross.
It’s a helpful overview, but it was at times repetitive. Large portions of the later chapters repeats in detail the arguments of previous chapters, which made reading a bit boring.
July 15, 2022
Excelente conteúdo. A escrita é acadêmica e bastante rigorosa. Mas há bastante citações em latim que dificultam a leitura. A maior parte, dá para entender pelo contexto ou é explicada em algum momento, mas outras ficam perdidas.
O livro é excelente e trata da evolução do pensamento de Lutero, partindo da Via Moderna (de Gabriel Biel) até sua ruptura com esta e a descoberta dos conceitos de Justiça de Deus, justiça imputada e, por fim, a Teologia da Cruz.
O livro é excelente e trata da evolução do pensamento de Lutero, partindo da Via Moderna (de Gabriel Biel) até sua ruptura com esta e a descoberta dos conceitos de Justiça de Deus, justiça imputada e, por fim, a Teologia da Cruz.
June 12, 2017
McGrath meticulously works through the evidence as to when and how Luther "rediscovered" the Gospel. He reflects extensive research, interacts with diverse other similar studies and provides a model of excellent scholarship. One of my friends provides a good review here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
February 27, 2020
Wonderful book. I’ve always been interested in the topic. This book is not for beginners. It’s dense and filled with technical Latin phrases. Very important for those interested in Luther, Medieval theology, or the issue of analogia in theology
January 13, 2021
Great author. Great theology. Great topic. Not my favorite book on this topic.
November 16, 2023
Heavy on background and development, light on analysis of the actual content of Luther's heology of the cross.
November 25, 2025
This is an enjoyable kind of analysis of the development of Luther's 'breakthrough.' It recognizes that a person's philosophy / theology is not divorced from the their lived experience. It does, however (and this is very important) also demonstrate that Luther's theology was not merely the result of some drunken monk's ramblings and private interpretation.
One the one hand, the analysis allows us to see that Luther's life's circumstances led directly to his theology. So we might say, if he had not... if the [religious] order had been... and so on. On the other hand, the analysis helps one make a judgement about whether Luther had brought to the church a novel teaching. McGrath paints a picture that allows us to see the theological seeds in the history of the church that Luther was digging up to draw the conclusions he did. Those looking to answer the question about the novelty or orthodoxy of Luther's theology will certainly find much here to contemplate. One can surely grasp from this study that Luther sincerely believed he was dusting off God's saving grace from the dungeons of the institution of Rome.
One the one hand, the analysis allows us to see that Luther's life's circumstances led directly to his theology. So we might say, if he had not... if the [religious] order had been... and so on. On the other hand, the analysis helps one make a judgement about whether Luther had brought to the church a novel teaching. McGrath paints a picture that allows us to see the theological seeds in the history of the church that Luther was digging up to draw the conclusions he did. Those looking to answer the question about the novelty or orthodoxy of Luther's theology will certainly find much here to contemplate. One can surely grasp from this study that Luther sincerely believed he was dusting off God's saving grace from the dungeons of the institution of Rome.
February 25, 2016
Really interesting. I was honestly more looking for an exposition of the nature of the theologia crusis though I found a more historical approach ; what causes are responsible for the emergence of the theologia crusis. It somewhat helped to understand the nature of it. And, don't get me wrong, it does talk about the nature of the theologia crusis, but it's not a study on that.
If you're looking for a great exposition, check this book out: On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518! Changed my perspective on a lot of things!
If you're looking for a great exposition, check this book out: On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518! Changed my perspective on a lot of things!
Read
September 28, 2016I can't rate this book, since I don't think I was its target audience. It is a scholarly work on Martin Luther, and spends much time in details I didn't really care about. Most of what I enjoyed was in the last couple of chapters. By and large, this book wasn't for me. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful for someone interested in some of those scholarly arguments.
will-not-finish
January 9, 2024I decided to DNF this about 30% in. There is nothing wrong with it, it's just a bit too academic for me right now and I'm not doing it justice. I may revisit in the future.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews