Dh chiparus biography of martin luther

Home / General Biography Information / Dh chiparus biography of martin luther

Luther criticises not only Erasmus’s various interpretative suggestions, but also his motives in offering them, which is to try to make God’s actions morally comprehensible to our reason, rather than simply accepting the goodness of God (WA 18:707–8/LW 33:173–4). doi:10.1017/9781108525077.009

  • Holm, Bo Kristen, 2019, “Luther, Seneca, and Benevolence in Both Creation and Government”, in Apprehending Love, Pekka Kärkkäinen and Olli-Pekka Vainio (eds.), Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Society, pp.

    In 1525, he married Katharina von Bora. As with Luther’s critique of reason, however, some of his more notoriously negative judgements—such as his claim in the Disputation Against Scholastic Theology that “the whole Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light” (1517, WA 1:226/LW 31:12)—need to be balanced against other more positive judgements, and set in context.

    Translated as Martin Luther: Rebel in an Age of Upheaval, Rona Johnston (trans.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

  • Vainio, Olli-Pekka, 2025, Luther under Scrutinity. 35–100. Monastic life made him aware of the theology of mysticism, which deeply shaped his further development.

    However, Luther did not find this life an easy one, later recalling that while he tried to live without reproach and made full use of confession, he still felt that he “was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience” (“Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Writings”, 1545, WA 54:185/LW 34:336), in spite of the reassurances given him by his mentor Johann von Staupitz (1468–1524), then vicar-general of the observant wing of the Augustinians.

    Luther thus sets his own view in opposition to the Aristotelian one in the Disputation Against Scholastic Philosophy when he writes that “We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds”, so that as a result “Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace” (1517, WA 1:226/LW 1:12).

    He threw himself into the life of a monk with verve. He edited it twice, in 1516 and 1518, wrongly attributing it to Johann Tauler (c. And as regards the former point, while the Christian qua Christian will not feel the law as a constraint or as a vehicle for salvation, this does not mean that the law does not apply to them.

    In July of 1505, Martin was caught in a horrific thunderstorm.

    Though they did not win admiration of the public, Chiparus profiled himself. Translated as Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms in the Context of his Theology, Karl H. Hertz (trans.), Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

  • Cargill Thompson, W. D. J., 1969, “The ‘Two Kingdoms’ and the ‘Two Regiments’: Some Problems of Luther’s Zwei-Reiche-Lehre”, The Journal of Theological Studies, 20(1): 164–185.

    doi:10.1111/j.0012-2033.2006.00296.x

  • Kirjavainen, Heikki, 1984, “Luther und Aristoteles: Die Frage der zweierlei Gerechtigkeit im Lichte der transitiven vs. The school stressed Latin and a bit of logic and rhetoric. Luther’s account may be more myth than fact, , following confessions story patterns since Augustine.

    dh chiparus biography of martin luther

    doi:10.1515/9783110499025-009

  • Bielfeldt, Dennis, 2016, “Martin Luther and Ontology”, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion, John Barton (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. This impact began with the publication of his Ninety-Five Theses on 31 October 1517, in which as a young professor at Wittenberg he attacked the Church’s doctrine of indulgences as falling short of a true Biblical understanding of penance; this was then followed by various further disputations and disputes as well as published works that defended his increasingly radical position, leading to his excommunication in 1521 and his famously defiant appearance at the Diet of Worms.

    In response, Luther argues that divine foreknowledge makes this distinction moot: for if we allow this foreknowledge, then what God knows must happen necessarily otherwise he could not know it infallibly in advance; and if God did not have this knowledge,

    you take away faith and fear of God, make havoc of all the divine promises and threatenings, and thus deny his very divinity.