What do you think?
Rate this book
Renovatio: Martin Luther's Augustinian Theology of Sin, Grace and Holiness
Much mainstream Luther scholarship (and Lutheran theology) holds that Martin Luther downplayed, denied, derided, or just plain ignored "the holiness without which no one shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14). Phil Anderas advances a revisionist from the first inklings of his "Augustinian turn" c. 1514 to his death in 1546, Luther held and taught a robust theology of progressive renewal in holiness, carefully calibrated to the sober reality of residual sin and the astonishing gospel of grace in Jesus Christ. As it is set forth in the works that embody Luther's most considered judgments (c. 1535-46), this gospel-centered and irreducibly trinitarian dogmatics of real renewal in holiness is "Augustinian" and "evangelical" in equal parts. As such, it commands the regard of theologians who stand in the tradition of the Church's doctor gratiae. The argument proceeds in three first, an exposition of the mature Luther's dogmatics of sin, grace, and holiness; second, an investigation of the roots of this dogmatics in the theology of the "420s Augustine," with whom a younger Luther was busily engaged c. 1514-16; third, an account of the continuities and discontinuities that characterize the development of Luther's theology from its embryonic state in the mid-1510s through the breakthroughs of the 1518-21 period to the settled position of the old Doctor.
344 pages, Hardcover
Published June 17, 2019
1 person want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 27, 2019
I’m tossed about how to rate this book. Here are the pros of it:
1) I know the author well, and know he’s a legit scholar in the Lutheran/Augustinian trajectory of tradition. He has thought a lot about this, and mostly in German (!)
2) his writing style is both academic and pastoral (a great quality)
3) this published doctoral dissertation of his is extraordinarily well documented/footnoted and thoughtful
4) it accomplishes the overall point to be proven: that Martin Luther’s views about Grace, Gift, Holiness, etc in relation to salvation changed over a thirty year period, but mostly it was the image or language utilized (to teach rhetorically) that changed. The so called “gospel substance” of grace and gift never officially changed. And in that light, many Lutheran scholars have misunderstood Luther’s views of holiness. Luther insisted upon objective holiness in order to be saved. That controversy is now officially over.
Cons:
1) formatting issues: there is far too much overlap within English translations of the German and Latin where Phil (my friend, the author) combines both, instead of simply providing both separately (probably to reduce page count). Randomly, half way through the book, underlining appears in certain quotes. That was odd! German appears mid sentence to replace English, followed by Latin replacing the English, instead of there being BOTH English and German/Latin. That, too, was very odd at times. I’m surprised the editor didn’t notice it. There are also typos. In two spots a quote is given, but one word is translated differently in each. Also, in some German words, a “v” is used in place of the letter “u”. Last of all, Phil inserts (annoyingly and needlessly) his own personal Latin and German words into his own sentences for stylistic reasons. It is so common, in fact, that I sometimes wondered why he even bothered writing sentences in English at all!
2) in typical Reformational zeal, Phil tells the reader how to interpret Luther’s system of thought. This is extremely unnecessary at times. It is so common in part one of the book, that a well-read Calvinist reader might be led to believe that Luther was a card carrying Westminster Divine, utilizing distinctions that appear later on in history. Of course, bible verses quoted completely out of bible-context are then supplied next to Phil’s Calvinist-leaning remarks in order to justify his interpretation of Luther’s remarks. Of course, I say this somewhat tongue and cheek. It’s not characteristic of most interpretations of Luther, but part one of the book has some substantially questionable Calvinist interpretations of Luther. Part two of the book shows that younger Luther did not think that way. Nevertheless, Luther is portrayed by Phil as one who held on to the (Calvinist) gospel substance that is remarkably similar to later Reformational Confessionalism. I find this feeling I gathered to be odd. And I suspect it’s because Luther’s views of the gospel is really not well represented in part one of the book. Phil’s Reformational expressions are simply transposed over Luther’s at key points.
3) Part two solidified two ideas in my mind: (1) Luther was enamored by his own conceits, and (2) Luther dogmatically rationalized away all synergism of personal salvation, yet his system is obviously and blatantly synergistic. I find that relieving. But Phil tries to wave a “robust” Augustinian wand around Luther’s synergism and call it monergism based entirely on grace and gift. That was disappointing. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to insist upon as much.
4) Luther’s maturation in understanding holiness, apostasy, election, etc., from a “biblical” perspective really amounts to how his Interpretation of Romans and Galatians changed. In the end, Phil highlights that God’s non-imputation of sin based on one’s non-consent of residual sin is *the* practical factor between remaining a child of God or not. Mysteriously, that’s ultimately irrelevant though, because of predestination. But at the same time, predestination is not practical to obsess over, because God never tells us that we are truly elect. So Luther’s views of holiness really does amount to later Westminster Confessional views about election, apostasy, and perseverance, yet Phil never explicitly says so. I find the likeliness of that to be suspicious. I honestly think Phil transposes his own views upon Luther’s in order to fill in the blanks where important “gospel distinctions” are needed to prop up the Reformed system.
Phil also points out (in part three) how Luther would have agreed with Trent’s definition of Justification (!!!). However, that gets lost in all of the over-rationalized Augustinian Mumbo jumbo.
Also, in my own personal view of Scripture, Paul definitely did not mean what Luther or the Westminster Divines imagined about the forensic union between God and man, the total depravity and inability of mankind to do good, and the gross technicalities used by Augustine to make synergistic expressions appear monergistic.
For these reasons, I can only give the book three stars. But hey, if you’re a Reformed or Lutheran gospel-of-grace-nerd looking for justification of one’s tribe remaining well within the bounds of Augustinian “catholicity”, this book is for you. It will not disappoint in that regard.
1) I know the author well, and know he’s a legit scholar in the Lutheran/Augustinian trajectory of tradition. He has thought a lot about this, and mostly in German (!)
2) his writing style is both academic and pastoral (a great quality)
3) this published doctoral dissertation of his is extraordinarily well documented/footnoted and thoughtful
4) it accomplishes the overall point to be proven: that Martin Luther’s views about Grace, Gift, Holiness, etc in relation to salvation changed over a thirty year period, but mostly it was the image or language utilized (to teach rhetorically) that changed. The so called “gospel substance” of grace and gift never officially changed. And in that light, many Lutheran scholars have misunderstood Luther’s views of holiness. Luther insisted upon objective holiness in order to be saved. That controversy is now officially over.
Cons:
1) formatting issues: there is far too much overlap within English translations of the German and Latin where Phil (my friend, the author) combines both, instead of simply providing both separately (probably to reduce page count). Randomly, half way through the book, underlining appears in certain quotes. That was odd! German appears mid sentence to replace English, followed by Latin replacing the English, instead of there being BOTH English and German/Latin. That, too, was very odd at times. I’m surprised the editor didn’t notice it. There are also typos. In two spots a quote is given, but one word is translated differently in each. Also, in some German words, a “v” is used in place of the letter “u”. Last of all, Phil inserts (annoyingly and needlessly) his own personal Latin and German words into his own sentences for stylistic reasons. It is so common, in fact, that I sometimes wondered why he even bothered writing sentences in English at all!
2) in typical Reformational zeal, Phil tells the reader how to interpret Luther’s system of thought. This is extremely unnecessary at times. It is so common in part one of the book, that a well-read Calvinist reader might be led to believe that Luther was a card carrying Westminster Divine, utilizing distinctions that appear later on in history. Of course, bible verses quoted completely out of bible-context are then supplied next to Phil’s Calvinist-leaning remarks in order to justify his interpretation of Luther’s remarks. Of course, I say this somewhat tongue and cheek. It’s not characteristic of most interpretations of Luther, but part one of the book has some substantially questionable Calvinist interpretations of Luther. Part two of the book shows that younger Luther did not think that way. Nevertheless, Luther is portrayed by Phil as one who held on to the (Calvinist) gospel substance that is remarkably similar to later Reformational Confessionalism. I find this feeling I gathered to be odd. And I suspect it’s because Luther’s views of the gospel is really not well represented in part one of the book. Phil’s Reformational expressions are simply transposed over Luther’s at key points.
3) Part two solidified two ideas in my mind: (1) Luther was enamored by his own conceits, and (2) Luther dogmatically rationalized away all synergism of personal salvation, yet his system is obviously and blatantly synergistic. I find that relieving. But Phil tries to wave a “robust” Augustinian wand around Luther’s synergism and call it monergism based entirely on grace and gift. That was disappointing. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to insist upon as much.
4) Luther’s maturation in understanding holiness, apostasy, election, etc., from a “biblical” perspective really amounts to how his Interpretation of Romans and Galatians changed. In the end, Phil highlights that God’s non-imputation of sin based on one’s non-consent of residual sin is *the* practical factor between remaining a child of God or not. Mysteriously, that’s ultimately irrelevant though, because of predestination. But at the same time, predestination is not practical to obsess over, because God never tells us that we are truly elect. So Luther’s views of holiness really does amount to later Westminster Confessional views about election, apostasy, and perseverance, yet Phil never explicitly says so. I find the likeliness of that to be suspicious. I honestly think Phil transposes his own views upon Luther’s in order to fill in the blanks where important “gospel distinctions” are needed to prop up the Reformed system.
Phil also points out (in part three) how Luther would have agreed with Trent’s definition of Justification (!!!). However, that gets lost in all of the over-rationalized Augustinian Mumbo jumbo.
Also, in my own personal view of Scripture, Paul definitely did not mean what Luther or the Westminster Divines imagined about the forensic union between God and man, the total depravity and inability of mankind to do good, and the gross technicalities used by Augustine to make synergistic expressions appear monergistic.
For these reasons, I can only give the book three stars. But hey, if you’re a Reformed or Lutheran gospel-of-grace-nerd looking for justification of one’s tribe remaining well within the bounds of Augustinian “catholicity”, this book is for you. It will not disappoint in that regard.
Displaying 1 of 1 review