Volume 56, Issue 1

In this article Wolfram Adolph shows how Luther embraced fundamental cosmological and ethical elements from the Neo-Platonic inspired theology of music from Augustine (musica est optima scientia); and subordinated these to the soteriological-eschatological aspect of a (his) subjective logic of faith. The paradoxical talk about the duplex locus primus, in which Luther seemingly places music after theology (primum locum do Musicae post theologiam), as primus locus post primum locum as it were, is judged by the author to be a hermeneutic indication that both terms carry equal weight in Luther’s theological judgment. Consequently, a hegemonic conception of the ontological subordination or secondariness of the charismatic spiritual gift of the creation of music is ruled out - in contrast to an assumed ontologically asymmetrical superordinated theology, according to the traditional scholarly ordo principle, in which music would merely appear act as its epiphenomenon. With his statements about music, Luther himself turns noticeably and linguistically against such a dysfunctional, substantialistic argument and (mis)understood opposition of terminology. The author also demonstrates how Luther reshapes his reformatory concept of music based on pneumatological premises. The correct understanding and use of the theo-pysical and beneficial creature of music (creatura Dei et donum divinum excellentissimum) owes itself ultimately to a copresent occurrence of pneumatic communication and mediation, which, in terms of its profound eschatological dimension, uniquely reveals itself to the believer; and whose content is the exclusive self-tradition of the Spiritus Sanctus.

What is the genre of the Augsburg Confession? Knowing this identifies the meaning and use of the document historically and presently. The confession is apocalyptic, despite the disparaging place this genre has held in recent theology. The case comes especially from Martin Luther’s own correspondence of the time and his later recollection of the events given in his 1542 Genesis lectures. In the Genesis lectures Luther connected Augsburg to the conflict Rebecca had come to in the case of primogeniture and Jacob. The first table of the commandments came into strange conflict with the second: the law of authority conflicting with the promissio that makes faith. That is apocalypse, the conflict of the law and gospel. This had happened to him, Luther judged, in the 1518 questioning before Cardinal Cajetan. It happened again for the whole evangelical cause in 1530 at Augsburg, and led the Confessors to take up Psalm 119 as their prescript in its overt apocalyptic language: “we speak of your decrees before kings, and shall not be put to shame.” The remaining argument uses three of Luther’s letters written from Coburg immediately prior to and following the presentation of the Confession 1530 to Melanchthon (June 29), Spalatin (June 30) and Cordatus (July 6). It is a theological argument made in the letter that speaks of the Confession as a public sermon used as an instrument of the Holy Spirit for the creation of true church ex nihilo. Thus the genre of the CA is not only apocalyptic, but also the specific proclamation that distinguishes law and gospel. The CA is a sermon that regards and reckons only faith as righteousness in God’s sight. The proclamation of the Confession meant this divine word became a deed - God’s own cosmic courthouse, thus transferring the Reformation from Luther’s person, to the public when the thing was proclaimed literally to kings and the end - and new beginning - arrived in proclamation. Zusammenfassung Welche Gattung hat die Confessio Augustana? Dieses Wissen identifiziert die historische und gegenwärtige Bedeutung und Verwendung des Dokuments. Die Confessio ist apokalytisch, unabhängig von der Geringschätzung dieser Gattung in der gegenwärtigen Theologie. Der Grund hierfür liegt vor allem in Martin Luthers eigener Korrespondenz und seiner späteren Erinnerung an die Ereignisse, die Gegenstand seiner 1542 gehaltenen Genesis Vorlesungen sind. In den Genesis Vorlesungen verbindet Luther Augsburg mit dem Konflikt von Rebecca bezüglich Jakob und des Erstgeborenen. Die erste Gesetzestafel kam in einen komischen Konflikt mit der Zweiten: das Gesetz der Autorität liegt im Streit mit der promissio, die Glauben macht. Das ist Apokalypse, der Konflikt von Gesetz und Evangelium. Nach Luthers Urteil ist ihm eben jener in der Anhörung vor Kardinal Cajetan widerfahren. Er ereignete sich ein weiteres Mal für das gesamte protestantische Anliegen 1530 in Augsburg und ließ die Bekenner Psalm 119 aufgrund seiner offenkundig apokalyptischen Sprache Bezug nehmen: „Vor Königen wollen wir reden von deinen Zeugnissen und uns nicht schämen.“ Das verbleibende Argument verwendet drei Briefe Luthers aus Coburg unmittelbar vor und nach der Präsentation des Bekenntnisses 1530 geschrieben an Melanchthon (29. Juni), Spalatin (30. Juni) und Cordatus (6. Juli). Es ist ein theologisches Argument in dem Brief, das von der Confessio als öffentliche Predigt, die als Instrument des Heiligen Geistes die Schöpfung der wahren Kirche ex nihilo wirkt, spricht. Somit ist nicht nur die Gattung der CA apokalyptisch, sondern auch deren spezifische Verkündigung, die Gesetz und Evangelium unterscheidet. Die CA ist eine Predigt, die ausschließlich den Glauben als Gerechtigkeit anerkennt. Die Verkündigung der Confessio bedeutete, dass das göttliche Wort zur Tat wurde - Gottes eigener kosmischer Gerichtshof. Die Reformation wurde also von Luthers Person auf die Öffentlichkeit übertragen, als die Confessio buchstäblich Königen verkündet wurde und so das Ende - und der neue Anfang - in der Verkündigung kamen.

The article offers a critical appreciation of the Lutheran theologian Hermann Cremer (1834-1903), the leading figure of the so-called Greifswald School at the turn from the 19th to the 20th century. In particular, I consider Cremer’s essay on the doctrine of God’s attributes from 1897 in the context of his soteriology and theological epistemology, with a particular emphasis on his creative revision of the concept of God’s righteousness. According to Cremer, God’s grace is efficient precisely in and through God’s judgment. I also look at Cremer’s debate with Karl Friedrich Nösgen on the ‘righteousness of faith’ and the idea of justification by faith alone. Cremer’s thinking is then brought into conversation with several interpreters of his work in the 20th century. I conclude by raising some questions for further discussion, especially in regard to Cremer’s concept of conscience.

The article explores the complex relations between a phenomenological and a pragmatist approach to religion. This is done by considering two major conceptions in the history of philosophy of religion: Max Scheler’s Vom Ewigen im Menschen and William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience. The study of these two documents proceeds as follows: Based on the important fact that both thinkers follow the common interest to understand religion on its own terms, the line of the argument focuses on the differences in their basic methodical choices and highlights the objective reasons that underlie these choices. It stresses that these differences result from a different account of the character and function of philosophical knowledge. In a last line of thought, the question is raised if one can make a productive use of this contrast.

An important feature of Karl Barth’s thought is that he increasingly conceptualizes theology as Christology. According to his conviction, the relationship between God and humankind is not to be understood except through Jesus Christ. In this paper two aspects of this approach will be examined: (Part I) Barth’s endeavour to arrive at a decidedly theological theology and (Part II) the interrelated emphasis on history. With both of these aspects, Barth turns against the so-called Liberal Theology. In conclusion, the question will be discussed how Barth’s relationship to Liberal Theology is to be specified (Part III).

The paper examines the epistemology of speculative theology. It presents an account of how to recognize the legitimate theoretical constructs of speculative theology in the aftermath of the dialectical theology of Karl Barth. Using the conceptual tools developed by Barth, the paper focuses on his account of the Miracle of Christmas in Kirchliche Dogmatik vol. I/2 in order to uncover three criteria for determining the truth-value of the various theoretical constructs of speculative theology: 1) the particularity of its meta-vocabulary, 2) the dialectics of judgment and affirmation, and 3) its distinctive pneumatology. Concretely, the paper draws on Barth’s theoretical and practical insights from the second Romans commentary from 1922 up to the Kirchliche Dogmatik I/ 1, and shows how his development results in a determinate form of conceptual mediation that could profitably be called speculative reading. The paper then traces how the immanent rationality of revelation structures Barth’s reading of the Miracle of Christmas and brings to expression a series of distinctive conceptual characteristics that allow us to measure the truth value of his interpretation. Finally, the paper ends with a critical engagement of Robert Jenson’s influential account of Barth’s pneumatological deficit in the Kirchliche Dogmatik. Zusammenfassung Die wissenschaftliche Arbeit untersucht die Erkenntnistheorie der spekulativen Theologie. Sie stellt dar, wie man die legitimen theoretischen Konstrukte der spekulativen Theologie in der Zeit nach der dialektischen Theologie Karl Barths erkennen kann. Mit Hilfe der von Barth entwickelten Begriffswerkzeuge konzentriert sich die Arbeit auf seinen Bericht über das Weihnachtswunder in Kirchliche Dogmatik Band I/2, um die drei Kriterien für die Bestimmung des Wahrheitswerts der verschiedenen theoretischen Konstrukte der spekulativen Theologie sichtbar zu machen: 1) die Besonderheit seines Meta- Vokabulars, 2) die Dialektik des Urteils und der Bestätigung und 3) seinen unverwechselbaren Pneumatologie. Konkret greift die Arbeit auf Barths theoretische und praktische Einblicke aus der zweiten Römer-Kommentar von 1922 bis zu der Kirchlichen Dogmatik I/1 zurück und zeigt, wie seine Entwicklungsergebnisse zu einer bestimmten Form der konzeptionellen Mediation führen, die vorteilhafte als spekulative Lese bezeichnet werden könnte. Die Arbeit zeichnet dann nach, wie die immanente Rationalität der Offenbarung Barths Lesen des Weihnachtswunders strukturiert und eine Reihe von markanten konzeptionellen Merkmalen zum Ausdruck bringt, die es uns erlaubt den Wahrheitsgehalt seiner Interpretation zu beurteilen. Die Arbeit schließt mit einer kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit Robert Jensons Einfluss auf Barths pneumatologisches Defizit in der Kirchlichen Dogmatik ab.