En velnæret Martin Luther (Cranach, 1546 A.D.)
For år tilbage skrev jeg et indlæg om det katolske skabelsessyn, og den indbyrdes relation mellem Gud og mennesket. Det var reelt på foranledning af én som efterspurgte det, og nu er tiden moden til at følge op på indlægget, i relation til hvad Martin Luther selv mente om Gud, syndefaldet og dette "Guds billede". Vi gennemfører en stykvis gennemgang af Luthers kommentar til Genesis, og især afsnittet hvor han omtaler menneskets skabelse i Guds billede, og hvordan han forstår det. Vi skal se, at Luther for det første er usammenhængende i sin systematik, uklar i sin begrebsdefinition, og vævende i sin kritik og afledte konklusioner. Efter at have læst Luthers egen udlægning, er det vanskeligt at se andet, end at han både gør op med den traditionelle kristne antropologi, men heller ikke har nogen klar forståelse af hvorledes krop og sjæl reelt samvirker. Hele Luthers Genesis-kommentar er lang, og kan læses i sin fulde længde her. Nedenfor bringes et uddrag af Luthers kommentar til syndefaldet, afsnit 28.
Afstandtagen til Skt. Augustin
Thirdly. A whole sea of questions is here agitated as to what that "image" of God was in which Moses here says man was formed. Augustine has dwelt largely on the explanation of this passage in his book "On the Trinity." Those divines in general, who retain the division and definition of Aristotle, follow Augustine. They consider the image of God to be those powers of soul, memory, mind or intellect and will. They affirm that the image of God consists in these three qualities; which image, they say, is found in all men. And their argument is, that as in divine things the Word is begotten of the substance of the Father, and as the Holy Spirit is the complacency or good pleasure of the Father, so in man from the memory proceeds the word of the heart, which is the mind of the man; which word being uttered there is developed the will, which will the mind beholds and with which it is delighted.
Luther indleder med at tydeliggøre Hl. Augustins position, og redegør altså for hvor Hl. Augustin forklarer dette. Den augustinske redegørelse kan læses længere nede, hvor Hl. Augustin selv forklarer at Treenigheden tager bolig i vores sjæl, og at menneskets sjælskræfter både er intellekt og vilje (blandt andet). Som vi skal se, har Luther svært ved at skille tingene fra hinanden, og han formår aldrig rigtigt at forklare hvorfor han ikke kan acceptere Hl. Augustins position.
These divines affirm moreover that "the similitude," after which man was formed, stands in gratuitous gifts. For as a similitude is a certain perfectness of an image, so, they say, the created nature of man is perfected by grace. According to their views therefore the "similitude" of God in man consists in his memory being adorned with hope, his intellect with faith and his will with love. It is in this manner, they assert, that man is created in the image of God; that man has a mind, a memory and a will. Again they state the sacred matter thus: Man is created after the "similitude" of God; that is, his intellect is illuminated by faith, his memory is confirmed by hope and constancy, and his will is adorned with love.
Her er det vigtigt at fremhæve, at Luther faktisk godt forstår den traditionelle katolske antropologi. Helt konkret er det sådan, at mennesket er en sammensat komponent af både krop og sjæl. Som en konsekvens af syndefaldet, har vi ikke længere kontrol over vores kødelighed, fordi vores tilbøjelighed til at elske materielle ting, vanskeliggør at vi kan opnå et perfekt kærlighedsforhold til Gud. Hvad Luther ikke tydeliggør her, er at menneskenaturen ikke i sig selv gøres perfekt ved nåde, men også at menneskets intellekt og vilje, indlades på en helliggørelse som en konsekvens af Guds nåde.
Fourthly. Divines give other divisions and definitions of the qualities of this "image" of God, in which man was originally created. They hold that memory is the image of the power of God, mind the image of his wisdom and will the image of his justice. It was after this manner that Augustine, and after him others, bent their minds on the discovery of certain trinities of natural qualities or endowments in man. For they thought that by this mode of explanation, the image of God in man would be the more clearly seen. These not unpleasing speculations do indeed argue faithful employment and great acuteness of mental ability, but they by no means aid the right explanation of this "image" of God.
Her går Luther indledningsvis i rette med den augustinske position.
Wherefore though I do not altogether condemn and reprobate this diligence and these deep thoughts, by which divines desire to reduce all things to a kind of sacred trinity, yet I doubt whether such attempts are very useful, especially seeing that others may push them too far. For it is on these grounds that some rest their disputes in favor of free-will; which, they say, naturally follows from this "image of God."
Det er katolsk lære at effekten af Treenigheden tager bolig i vores sjæl, at vi bliver Guds børn som en konsekvens af dåben, og at Helligånden tager bolig i os, således at vi kan elske Gud og modtage Hans nåde. Allerede her er Luther ude på et sidespor, for hvad er det han mener med at visse teologer "går for langt"? Som vi skal se, konkretiserer han aldrig det han finder problematisk, og han er nødt til at tage afstand fra Kirkens lære om fri vilje, for at han kan befinde sig på sikker grund. Lad os se mere:
They argue thus: God is free. Since therefore man is created in the image of God, man also has a free memory, a free mind and a free will. Out of this kind of reasoning therefore many things fall, which are either spoken untruly at first, or are afterwards wrongly understood or wickedly perverted. It is from this source that the dangerous doctrine has arisen, according to which men affirm, that God so rules and governs men that he permits them to use their own mind and movement.
Det er helt rigtigt, at Gud har skabt os med en fri vilje, fordi kærlighed ikke kan operere med tvang. En gensidig kærlighedsrelation er betinget af, at den er skabt i frihed, på samme vis som at Gud har skabt os i frihed, af sin egen frie vilje. Således modtager vi i vores sjæl, de samme essenser af vores skaber, fordi de overføres til os når vi undfanges. Selv da Adam blev undfanget, lod Gud "Sin ånde" blæse ind i Adam, og således lade Sine egne kvaliteter overføre til Adam, som en muliggørelse af denne gensidige kærlighedsrelation. Dermed overføres i vores rationelle sjæl, de kvaliteter der muliggør at vi kan erkende koncepter, tænke rationelt og erkende og elske Gud.
Hele problemet med ovenstående strofe er, at Luther skal vise at Gud ikke har skabt os i kærlighed, og at denne kærlighed er betinget af en fri, gensidig og eksklusiv kærlighedsrelation. Luther skriver desuden, at tidligere tiders forståelse blot er forkert, eller "perverteret", men han forklarer aldrig hvorfor, og kommer ikke med noget belæg for sin påstand.
By this sentiment and teaching many most objectionable opinions have been generated. From this same source has originated that pernicious saying, "God who made thee without thyself will not save thee without thyself." Such men conclude that free-will concurs with the grace and work of God, as a preceding and efficient cause of salvation. Not unlike this is the saying of Dionysius, which is more pernicious still: "Although devils and man fell, yet all their natural faculties remained whole and entire; their mind, their memory, their will," etc. If this be true therefore it will follow, that man by his own natural powers can save himself.
Her er "The Money Shot":
Det er fuldstændig korrekt, at vores frelse alene er en konsekvens af Guds nåde, som primær og effektiv årsag. Det står eksplicit i Johannesprologen, og er en logisk nødvendighed. Det modsatte er pelagianisme, som er fordømt af koncilet i Orange i A.D. 534.
Det følger på ingen måde at mennesket kan frelse sig selv ved sine egne naturlige kræfter, blot fordi vi har fri vilje.
Mennesket kan i sin faldne natur godt erkende Guds eksistens, fordi vi kan erkende Hans afledte effekter i den naturlige verden.
Vores vilje befaler vores intellekt til at gribe de koncepter, goder, skabte og immaterielle ting, som vores koncept kommer i kontakt med, gennem vores sanseapparat. Men for at vi kan kende, elske og tjene Gud, så kræver det at vi får indgydt en kvalitet i vores sjæl, dvs. nåde. Vi kan ikke opnå venskab med Gud, medmindre Han indgyder denne motivation i vores sjæl - selv vores vilje, bevæges af det som kaldes ko-operativ og operativ nåde. Selv vores vilje bevæges altså til den overnaturlige verden, som en konsekvens af Guds kærlighed til os, og såfremt vi vælger at tage imod denne gratia, altså nådegave.
Essensen er altså, at alt hvad vi får i vores liv, er en konsekvens af Guds nåde, hvad enten vi taler aktuel nåde, habituel nåde, karismatisk nåde, men også helliggørende nåde - for ikke at nævne alle vores fysiske fornødenheder.
Luther laver her et kænguruhop over Grand Canyon. Det svarer til at påstå, at fri vilje medfører at alle mennesker bliver rige, og hvis man ikke er rig, ja - så har man ikke fri vilje. Det er et totalt usammenhængende argument.
Her er der to muligheder - enten forstår Luther ikke hvorledes nåde virker ind i sjælen som en konsekvens af Helligåndens indvirken på den, eller også ignorerer han forsætligt det faktum fordi det ikke passer til hans teologiske position.
These perilous opinions of some of the fathers are agitated in all churches and schools, and I do not really see what the fathers wished to effect by them. Therefore I advise that they be read with caution and judgment. They were often spoken in a mood and with a peculiar feeling, which we have not and cannot have, since we have not similar occasions. Inexperienced persons therefore seize them all, without any judgment, in their own sense, and not in the meaning the fathers had at the time they were uttered. But I leave this and return to our theme.
Her omtaler han kirkefædrenes holdning til fri vilje, og synes at kunne tillade sig at fælde dom over 1500 års katolsk tradition, for ikke at nævne den gammeltestamentlige. Lad os se hvordan Luther så forstår "Imago Dei" og hvorledes mennesket er skabt og eksisterer, både før og efter syndefaldet:
Luthers usammenhængende antropologi
I fear however that since this "image of God" has been lost by sin, we can never fully attain to the knowledge of what it was. Memory, mind and will we do most certainly possess, but wholly corrupted, most miserably weakened; nay, that I may speak with greater plainness, utterly leprous and unclean. If these natural endowments therefore constitute the image of God it will inevitably follow that Satan also was created in the image of God; for he possesses all these natural qualities, and to an extent and strength far beyond our own. For he has a memory and an intellect the most powerful and a will the most obstinate.
Hvad mener Luther med, at vores hukommelse, intellekt og vilje er fuldstændig korrumperet, og sågar spedalsk og uren? Her skal han forklare hvorledes denne spedalskhed indvirker på vores intellekt - vil det sige, at vi ikke kan erkende Gud i vores naturlige tilstand? At vi ikke kan regne, læse eller tale? Desuden, hvis han både mener at Treenigheden ikke tager bolig i vores sjæl som en konsekvens af Guds nåde, men også samtidig mener at vores rationelle fakulteter også er svækket, på en måde han ikke forklarer - hvordan kan han så vide at han har tro?
Den reelle konsekvens af syndefaldet er, at Gud fjerner sin helliggørende nåde fra Adam, og overlader ham til at dø en naturlig død, fordi alene Guds kærlighed til Adam muliggjorde at han kunne leve et evigt liv. Det betyder også, at Adams kødelighed, og naturligvis også Evas, blev genstand for døden, og at døden på den vis blev et livsvilkår for menneskeracen. Men Gud lod stadig sin aktuelle nåde forblive over Adam, og lod ham leve i den naturlige, faldne verden. Konsekvensen blev altså, at Adam ikke længere havde kontrol over sin vilje og sit intellekt, og lød sine kødelige impulser regere over sin sjæl. Det er egentlig hele essensen af Det Gamle Testamente, at Adams efterkommere ikke kunne opnå kærlighedsrelation til Gud, fordi de ikke havde del i Treenigheden, før Kristus. Det er jo ligesom hele motivationen for at Gud blev menneske, at Han lod os tage del i Ham. Forstår Luther egentlig dette?
Ja, Fristeren var også skabt i Guds billede, men valgte fra begyndelsen fjendskab til Gud. Dette skete øjeblikkeligt, da Lucifer blev skabt. Alle engle er immateriel visdom og intellekt. Guds billede er ikke noget vi har, det er noget vi er.
The image of God therefore is something far different from all this. It is a peculiar work of God. If there be those however who are yet disposed to contend that the above natural endowments and powers do constitute the image of God, they must of necessity confess that they are all leprous and unclean. Even as we still call a leprous man a man, though all the parts of his leprous flesh be stupefied and dead, as it were, with disease, except that his whole nature is vehemently excited to lust.
Ja, men menneskenaturen er både krop og sjæl. Luther skal stadigvæk vise, hvorledes vores kødelige natur påvirker vores sjælskræfter, dvs. intellekt og vilje - dette undlader han konsekvent i sin redegørelse forneden.
Wherefore that image of God created in Adam was a workmanship the most beautiful, the most excellent and the most noble, while as yet no leprosy of sin adhered either to his reason or to his will. Then all his senses, both internal and external, were the most perfect and pure. His intellect was most clear, his memory most complete and his will the most sincere, accompanied with the most charming security, without any fear of death and without any care or anxiety whatever. To these internal perfections of Adam was added a power of body and of all his limbs, so beautiful and so excellent that he surpassed all other animate natural creatures. For I fully believe that before his sin the eyes of Adam were so clear and their sight so acute that his powers of vision exceeded those of the lynx. Adam, I believe, being stronger than they, handled lions and bears, whose strength is so great, as we handle the young of any animal. I believe also that to Adam the sweetness and the virtue of the fruits which he ate were far beyond our enjoyment of them now.
Her redegør Luther for Adams kvaliteter før syndefaldet, men det var egentlig ikke det der var hans opdrag. Han skulle forklare hvorledes Adam virkede efter syndefaldet - det er et tema han gentagne gange bliver ved med at vende tilbage til, som vi skal se. Han kan aldrig rigtigt blive præcis og sammenhængende i sin udlægning:
After the fall however death crept in like leprosy over all the senses. So that now we cannot comprehend this image of God by our intellect. Adam moreover in his innocency could not have known his wife Eve, but with the most pure and confident mind towards God; with a will the most obedient to God and a soul the most free from all impurity of thought.
Og igen - hvis vi ikke kan erkende Gud med vores intellekt, endsige forstå det - hvordan kan vi så vide at vi har tro? Hvor bor troen så henne, hvis den ikke indlejres i sjælen som en konsekvens af Treenighedens indlejring i os?
But now since the sin of the fall all know how great is the excitement of the flesh, which is not only furious in concupiscence, but also in disgust after it has satisfied its desire. In neither case therefore is the reason or the will sound or whole. Both are fallen and corrupt.
Her fristes man til at spørge Luther, at hvis han virkelig mener at også hans intellekt og vilje er fuldkommen korrumperet, som han skriver foroven - hvordan kan han så stole på dét han selv skriver? Her burde enhver kunne se den logiske fejlslutning.
And the fury of the desire is more brutish than human. Is not this our leprosy then grievous and destructive? But of all this Adam knew nothing before the sin of his fall. His only peculiarity then was that he had greater powers and more acute and exquisite senses than any other living creature. But now how far does the wild boar exceed man in the sense of hearing, the eagle in sight, and the lion in strength? No one therefore can now conceive, even in thought, how far the excellency of man when first created surpasses what he is now.
Her vender Luther igen tilbage til Adams tilstand før faldet, men forklarer ikke tilstanden i sammenhæng efter.
Wherefore I for my part understand the image of God to be this: that Adam possessed it in its moral substance or nature; that he not only knew God and believed him to be good, but that he lived also a life truly divine; that is, free from the fear of death and of all dangers and happy in the favor of God. This is apparent in Eve, who we find talks with the serpent, devoid of all fear; just as we do with a lamb or a dog. Therefore God sets before Adam and Eve this, as a punishment, if they should transgress his command: "In the day that thou eatest of this tree thou shalt surely die the death." As if he had said, "Adam and Eve, ye now live in all security. Ye neither see nor fear death. This is my image in which ye now live. Ye live as God lives. But if ye sin ye shall lose this image; ye shall die."
Ja, Martin Luther. Men du skal jo forklare om dette Guds billede efter syndefaldet. Kommer du snart til sagen?
Hence we see and feel the mighty perils in which we now live; how many forms and threatenings of death this miserable nature of ours is doomed to experience and endure, in addition to that unclean concupiscence and those other ragings of sin and those inordinate emotions and affections, which are engendered in the minds of all men. We are never confident and happy in God, fear and dread in the highest are perpetually trying us. These and like evils are the image of the devil, who has impressed that image upon us. But Adam lived in the highest pleasure and in the most peaceful security. He feared not fire nor water, nor dreaded any of those other evils with which this life is filled and which we dread too much continually.
Men her blandet Luther antropologien sammen igen - vores konkupiscens, syndige tilbøjelighed, er ikke noget som sådan bor i vores intellekt og vilje, men som findes i vores kødelighed. Vores sjæl reagerer på vores kødelige impulser, og kan enten vælge at afvise eller acceptere dem. Det er hele essensen af nåde, at den muliggør at vi kan holde vores kødelige natur under kontrol, af vores vilje og intellekt, og efterleve det som Gud ønsker af os.
Let those who are disposed to do so therefore extenuate original sin. It plainly appears, and with awful certainty, both in sins and in the punishment of them that original sin is great and terrible indeed. Look only at lust. Is it not most mighty, both in concupiscence and in disgust? And what shall we further say of hatred toward God and blasphemies of all kinds? These are sad evidences of the fall, which do indeed prove that the image of God in us is lost.
Her skriver han helt eksplicit at vi har fjendskab til Gud, som en konsekvens af syndefaldet. Det er ikke som sådan givet at vi er Guds fjender, men at vi mere er under indflydelse af Verdens Prins, og på den måde ikke kan opnå venskab med Gud, såfremt vi afviser ham. Men Gud kalder alle til kærlighed, og elsker hele menneskeracen.
Wherefore when we now attempt to speak of that image we speak of a thing unknown, an image which we not only have never experienced, but the contrary to which we have experienced all our lives and experience still. Of this image therefore all we now possess are the mere terms, "the image of God!" These naked words are all we now hear and all we know. But there was in Adam an illumined reason, a true knowledge of God, and a will the most upright to love both God and his neighbor. Hence Adam embraced his Eve, and immediately knew his own flesh. To all these endowments were added others of less excellency, but surpassingly excellent if compared with our present weakness. Adam had a perfect knowledge of all nature, of animals, of herbs, of trees, of fruits and of all other creatures.
Igen forsøger Luther at redegøre for hvad det vil sige at være skabt i Guds billede. Og - igen - vender han tilbage til at tale om Adams tilstand før syndefaldet - han bliver aldrig mere konkret end ovenstående, men lader sig alene bero på anektodiske anstrøg.
When all these endowments are put together they do not compose a man in whom you can at once behold the image of God shining forth, and more especially so when to all these endowments you add "dominion" over the whole creation. For as Adam and Eve acknowledged God to be Lord, so afterwards they themselves held dominion over all creatures in the air, on the earth and in the sea. Who can express in words the excellency and majesty of this "dominion?" For my belief is that Adam could by one word command the lion as we command a favorite dog. He possessed a freedom of will and pleasure to cultivate the earth, that it might bring forth whatever he wished. For the following chapters of this book prove that there were at the time of which we are now speaking neither thorns nor thistles, Chap. 3:18. Neither do I believe that wild beasts were so savage and fierce as they are now.
Men Luther - du lovede jo at redegøre for hvad det ville sige at være skabt i Guds billede, og nu taler du igen om Adams tilstand før syndefaldet - kommer du nogensinde til sagen?
But all these thorns and thistles, and this ferocity of beasts, are the consequences of original sin, by which all the rest of the creation contracted a corruption and a loss of its original excellency. Hence it is my belief also that before the sin of Adam, the sun was more bright, the water more pure, the trees more fruitful and the earth more productive than since he fell. But through that dreadful sin and that horrible fall, not only are the soul and the body deformed by the leprosy of sin, but all things we use in this life are corrupted; as we shall more plainly show hereafter.
Vi er korrumperede, men genfødes - giver det mening?
Now the very intent of the gospel is to restore this image of God. Man's intellect and will have indeed remained, but wholly corrupted. The divine object of the gospel is that we might be restored to that original and indeed better and higher image; an image, in which we are born again unto eternal life, or rather unto the hope of eternal life by faith, in order that we might live in God and with God and might be "one" with him, as Christ so beautifully and largely sets it forth in the seventeenth chapter of St. John.
Her modsiger Luther helt eksplicit sig selv. Han taler både om at vores intellekt og vilje er korrumperet, men samtidig skriver han at vi gennem tro opnår det evige liv. Hvis troen ikke indlejres i os, og hvis vores vilje og intellekt er korrumperet, hvordan kan vi så opnå forsoning med Gud?
Nor are we born again unto life only, but unto righteousness also, because faith lays hold of the merit of Christ and sets us free through the death of Christ. Hence arises another righteousness in us; namely, that "newness of life," in which we study to obey God as taught by the Word and helped by the Holy Spirit. This righteousness however begins only in this life and can never be perfected in the flesh. Nevertheless this newness of righteousness pleases God, not as being perfect in itself nor as being any price for our sins, but because it proceedeth from the heart and rests on a confidence in the mercy of God through Christ. And further, through the Gospel comes unto us this other blessing also conferred upon us through the Holy Spirit, who resists in us unbelief, envy and other sins and corruptions, to the intent that we may solemnly desire to adorn the name of the Lord and his holy Word.
Ja, Kristus døde for os på korset, men ikke kun som en konsekvens af lydighed, men også som en konsekvens af kærlighed til os. Ergo kan vi ikke både være korrumperede, og samtidig modtage nyt liv - enten forbliver vores sjæl og legeme korrumperede, eller også ændres deres tilstand. Man kan ikke være lidt gravid eller meget gravid, så enten er man gravid, eller også er man ikke. Tidligere forklarede Luther at Helligånden, herunder Treenigheden ikke tog bolig i vores sjæl - så hvordan kan Helligånden tilvejebringe at vi forstår ordet, hvis vores intellekt er fordærvet?
In this manner does the image of God begin to be restored in us through the Gospel by this new creation in this life. But in this life it is not perfected. When however it is perfected in the kingdom of the Father, then will our will be truly free and good, our mind truly illuminated and our memory constant and perfect. Then will it come to pass also that all creatures shall be more subject unto us than ever they were unto Adam in paradise
Men hvornår fuldendes vi så som skabninger, hvis det ikke er i dette liv? Lad os opsummere problemerne i punktform:
Fordi Gud er perfekt kærlighed, Sandhed og skønhed, og fordi Han også elsker mennesket efter syndefaldet, så lader Han Adam og Eva leve i deres naturlige tilstand, selvom de ikke længere modtager evigt liv i Gud - de modtager altså aktuel nåde, men deres evige liv var ene og alene betinget af Guds helliggørende nåde til dem.
Luther sammenblander intellekt, vilje og kødelige natur. Han forklarer ikke nådens effekt på sjælskræfterne, og fordi han afviser at treenigheden tager bolig i sjælen, og muliggør en kærlighed til vores overnaturlige skaber, så bliver han aldrig konkret i forhold til, hvordan troen så kan indfinde sig i intellektet - som han desuden også anfører, er spedalsk og korrumperet. Her er en helt central logisk fejlslutning, fordi vores intellekt i vores naturlige tilstand naturligvis er intakt, men vi har brug for en overnaturlig bevæger for at opnå overnaturlig venskab. En bil der er i stykker, kan ikke reparere sig selv - den kræver en ekstern agens, for at gøre den komplet.
Samtidig mener Luther stadigvæk, at vi kan modtage "nyt liv", på trods af at Gud ikke griber ind i sjælen, at vi ikke genoprettes i den naturlige verden, og at vi ikke kan stole på vores sanser eller intellekt. Her er han egentlig relativt innovativ, og læner sig formentlig uden at vide det, op ad fx René Descartes, som også påstod at vi ikke kan opnå perfekt sandhed gennem vores sanser, dvs. øjne, ører, men alene måtte bero på vores "rene tanke".
Vedr. den frie vilje, så er det centralt at forstå, at venskab og kærlighed til Gud også i sig selv er en indgydt nådegave.
Vi erkender gennem vores øjne, ører og øvrige sanseapparat. Vi erkender altså fra fødslen koncepter om vores naturlige verden omkring os.
Men for at vi kan erkende immaterielle koncepter, så kræver det at vi bruger vores abstraktionsevne, til fx at erkende immaterielle koncepter. Det gælder fx i spørgsmålet om Enhjørninger, som det gælder andre immaterielle skabninger. Men hverken enhjørninger eller engle, som er immateriel visdom, har materiel eksistens.
Og Gud, som er al eksistens, og som tilfører eksistens til alle koncepter, sender os nådegaver som vi enten kan forkaste eller acceptere. Og Han er det ultimative koncept som vi er kaldet til at erkende, elske og tjene.
Den frie vilje indgydes også overnaturlige nådegaver, for at kunne bevæge sig til den overnaturlige verden, fordi vi ikke ved vores egne kræfter kan opnå venskab og relation til Gud. Derfor er det ene og alene Gud som bevæger vores vilje og intellekt til Ham.
Så lad os se hvad det helt konkret er, som Luther frasiger sig i afsnittet foroven:
Skt. Augustin om Helligåndens gave, som er kærlighed
32. There is no gift of God more excellent than this. It alone distinguishes the sons of the eternal kingdom and the sons of eternal perdition. Other gifts, too, are given by the Holy Spirit; but without love they profit nothing. Unless, therefore, the Holy Spirit is so far imparted to each, as to make him one who loves God and his neighbor, he is not removed from the left hand to the right. Nor is the Spirit specially called the Gift, unless on account of love. And he who has not this love, though he speak with the tongues of men and angels, is sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; and though he have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and though he have all faith, so that he can remove mountains, he is nothing; and though he bestow all his goods to feed the poor, and though he give his body to be burned, it profits him nothing. How great a good, then, is that without which goods so great bring no one to eternal life! But love or charity itself — for they are two names for one thing — if he have it that does not speak with tongues, nor has the gift of prophecy, nor knows all mysteries and all knowledge, nor gives all his goods to the poor, either because he has none to give or because some necessity hinders, nor delivers his body to be burned, if no trial of such a suffering overtakes him, brings that man to the kingdom, so that faith itself is only rendered profitable by love, since faith without love can indeed exist, but cannot profit. And therefore also the Apostle Paul says, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that works by love: so distinguishing it from that faith by which even the devils believe and tremble. Love, therefore, which is of God and is God, is specially the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by which love the whole Trinity dwells in us. And therefore most rightly is the Holy Spirit, although He is God, called also the gift of God. And by that gift what else can properly be understood except love, which brings to God, and without which any other gift of God whatsoever does not bring to God?
Fordi Den Treenige Gud er al kærlighed, så er den gensidige kærlighedsrelation mellem Faderen og Sønnen, defineret ved deres perfekte bevægelse af kærlighed, som bevæger os til kærlighed. Gud er altså definitionen på al kærlighed, fordi Han er al Sandhed og al Godhed. Så Guds kærlighed er Hans gave til os, som vi kan tage imod. Derfor kan og vil Gud heller ikke skabe noget Han ikke kan eller vil genoprette, og derfor er det uantageligt at Gud ikke lader sig forsone med vores sjæl, og blot lader os fortabe, uden at vi får mulighed for forsoning med Ham. Det er hele logikken i at Han bliver menneske, og udsender Helligånden, som en del af Hans frelsesplan for menneskeheden. Ellers er Hans ankomst til verden fuldstændig meningsløs.
Hl. Augustin uddyber også dette i sin kommentar til Salme 118:
76. I know, she says, O Lord, that Your judgments are righteous, and that in Your truth You have humbled me Psalm 118:75. O let Your merciful kindness be my comfort, according to Your word unto Your servant Psalm 118:76. Mercy and truth are so spoken of in the Divine Word, that, while they are found in many passages, especially in the Psalms, it is also so read in one place, All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth. And here indeed he has placed truth first, whereby we are humbled unto death, by the judgment of Him whose judgments are righteousness: next mercy, whereby we are renewed unto life, by the promise of Him whose blessing is His grace. For this reason he says, according to Your Word unto Your servant: that is, according to that which You have promised unto Your servant. Whether therefore it be regeneration whereby we are here adopted among the sons of God, or faith and hope and charity, which three are built up in us, although they come from the mercy of God; nevertheless, in this stormy and troublesome life they are the consolations of the miserable, not the joys of the blessed. 80. O let my heart, he says, be unspotted in Your righteousnesses, that I be not ashamed Psalm 118:80. He returns to the words of His body, that is, His holy people, and now prays that his heart may be made unspotted, that is, the heart of His members; in the righteousnesses of God, not in their own strength: for He has prayed for this, not presumed upon it. In the words he has added, that I be not ashamed, there is a resemblance to some of the earlier verses of this Psalm. Whereas there, in the words, O that, he signifies a wish, he has here expressed himself in the more open words of one praying: O let my heart be sound: so that in neither of these two sentences, each of which is one and the same, there is found the boldness of one who trusts in his own free will against grace. While he says there, so shall I not be confounded: he says here, that I be not ashamed. The heart then of the members and the body of Christ is made unspotted, through the grace of God, by means of the very Head of that Body, that is, through Jesus Christ our Lord, by the laver of regeneration, Titus 3:5 wherein all our past sins have been blotted out; through the aid of the Spirit, whereby we lust against the flesh, that we be not overcome in our fight; Galatians 5:17 through the efficacy of the Lord's Prayer, wherein we say, Forgive us our trespasses. Matthew 6:12 Thus regeneration having been given to us, our conflict having been aided, prayer having been poured forth, our heart is made unspotted, so that we be not ashamed. Luke 6:37-38
Det er også præcis den logik som Hl. Augustin redegør for foroven, som Martin Luther tager afstand fra. Selv når vi vælger naturlige goder til, er de gaver fra Gud. Når vi beder, når vi faster, når vi tænker på Gud, så er det Gud der bevæger vores vilje. Vi kan ikke engang blinke med øjnene, uden at Han muliggør det. En sådan tanke er utroligt ydmygende, og det er måske dén ydmyghed man kan savne hos Luther.
Skt. Augustin om Den Frie Viljes nådegave i Enchiridion
Chapter 32. The Freedom of the Will is Also the Gift of God, for God Works in Us Both to Will and to Do. And further, should any one be inclined to boast, not indeed of his works, but of the freedom of his will, as if the first merit belonged to him, this very liberty of good action being given to him as a reward he had earned, let him listen to this same preacher of grace, when he says: For it is God which works in you, both to will and to do of His own good pleasure; and in another place: So, then, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. Now as, undoubtedly, if a man is of the age to use his reason, he cannot believe, hope, love, unless he will to do so, nor obtain the prize of the high calling of God unless he voluntarily run for it; in what sense is it not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, except that, as it is written, the preparation of the heart is from the Lord? Otherwise, if it is said, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, because it is of both, that is, both of the will of man and of the mercy of God, so that we are to understand the saying, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, as if it meant the will of man alone is not sufficient, if the mercy of God go not with it — then it will follow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, if the will of man go not with it; and therefore, if we may rightly say, it is not of man that wills, but of God that shows mercy, because the will of man by itself is not enough, why may we not also rightly put it in the converse way: It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills, because the mercy of God by itself does not suffice? Surely, if no Christian will dare to say this, It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills, lest he should openly contradict the apostle, it follows that the true interpretation of the saying, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, is that the whole work belongs to God, who both makes the will of man righteous, and thus prepares it for assistance, and assists it when it is prepared. For the man's righteousness of will precedes many of God's gifts, but not all; and it must itself be included among those which it does not precede. We read in Holy Scripture, both that God's mercy shall meet me, and that His mercy shall follow me. It goes before the unwilling to make him willing; it follows the willing to make his will effectual. Why are we taught to pray for our enemies, who are plainly unwilling to lead a holy life, unless that God may work willingness in them? And why are we ourselves taught to ask that we may receive, unless that He who has created in us the wish, may Himself satisfy the wish? We pray, then, for our enemies, that the mercy of God may prevent them, as it has prevented us: we pray for ourselves that His mercy may follow us.
Skt. Augustin - "Om nåde og fri vilje" (kap. 7)
"Grace is Necessary Along with Free Will to Lead a Good Life.Therefore, my dearly beloved, as we have now proved by our former testimonies from Holy Scripture that there is in man a free determination of will for living rightly and acting rightly; so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing. And first of all, I will say something about the very profession which you make in your brotherhood. Now your society, in which you are leading lives of continence, could not hold together unless you despised conjugal pleasure. Well, the Lord was one day conversing on this very topic, when His disciples remarked to Him, If such be the case of a man with his wife, it is not good to marry. He then answered them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Matthew 19:10 And was it not to Timothy's free will that the apostle appealed, when he exhorted him in these words: Keep yourself continent? 1 Timothy 5:22 He also explained the power of the will in this matter when He said, Having no necessity, but possessing power over his own will, to keep his virgin. 1 Corinthians 7:37 And yet all men do not receive this saying, except those to whom the power is given. Now they to whom this is not given either are unwilling or do not fulfil what they will; whereas they to whom it is given so will as to accomplish what they will. In order, therefore, that this saying, which is not received by all men, may yet be received by some, there are both the gift of God and free will.
Justinian (A.D. 100 - A.D. 165) om Fri Vilje
"Here, then, is a proof of virtue, and of a mind loving prudence, to recur to the communion of the unity, and to attach one's self to prudence for salvation, and make choice of the better things according to the free-will placed in man; and not to think that those who are possessed of human passions are lords of all, when they shall not appear to have even equal power with men." - Kommentar til Genesis 1,4.
Afslutning
Det er langt de færreste der rent faktisk sætter sig ned, og gennemgår hovedet og halen i hvad Martin Luther rent faktisk har skrevet og sagt. Man kan ikke bebrejde lutheranere, at de ikke har en sammenhængende systematisk teologi om samvirken mellem Gud, sjælen, kroppen, nåden og genkomsten til Gud. Men man kan godt tydeliggøre det problematiske i den lutherske position, fordi konsekvensen ved en Gud der ikke griber ind i sjælen, endsige i verden, er en Gud som reelt bliver deistisk. Han bliver fjern, ukærlig, uvedkommende - og til sidst forsvinder han helt. At ønske venskab - endsige kærlighed - med og til Gud, er en nådegave, som alle mennesker på jorden er kaldet til. Det beror de lutherske teologer, og sågar de som underviser på de lutherske læreanstalter, at tydeliggøre og formidle svaghederne i den lutherske systematik, således at folk selv og på ærlig vis kan vurdere om det er en form for kristendom de ønsker at indlade sig på. I den katolske udlægning, tydeliggøres det især at Gud ikke er fjernt fra os, Han er tværtimod en kontinuert indgriber, som hele tiden muliggør at vi kan operere - selv i den naturlige verden. Alt hvad vi har i vores liv, har vi ene og alene fordi Gud ønsker det. Vi skylder Gud taknemmelighed, men vi skylder også at forsvare Ham mod fejlagtigheder, som desværre leder mennesker væk fra den mest intime kærlighedsrelation noget menneske kan opleve.
For en enkel og kortfattet gennemgang af den thomistiske systematik, så kan man se denne video:
Comments