The Holy Spirit and the Reformation Legacy. Группа авторов

of specific elements of Christian praxis from the clerical elite to the lay masses. Tangible negative outcomes must also be considered when remembering and assessing the events that transpired from 1517. For example, many see ecclesial disunity as the Reformation’s greatest scandal. That disunity has accelerated at an unabated pace in modernity, not least because such thoughtful reflection often does not occur. Strikingly, this blemish on the heritage of the Reformation indirectly affects every aspect of the Christian faith as it allows for a multitude of theological fads and opinions to be given a near-equal platform to be voiced and accepted. From the nature of Scripture to the efficacy of the sacraments, there exists no single doctrine that can be articulated in a homogenous manner across denominations. Indeed, this lack of doctrinal agreement frequently engenders contentious dialogue within denominational persuasions. This chapter explores the presence of this “mixed” legacy within the theology of its most visible progenitor (Martin Luther) and the group that bears his namesake (Lutheranism).

Specifically, this exploration is situated with a growing stream of research that probes the ostensible dissimilarity between Martin Luther’s theology and later promulgations of Lutheranism, best embodied (or at least formatively shaped) by the theology of Philipp Melanchthon. Concerning their divergent theological trajectories, research in the past four decades is particularly noteworthy, especially the findings of the Mannermaa school and its posited retrieval of Luther’s true doctrine of justification, which bears a striking resemblance to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theōsis.1 Concerning this exercise, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen comments that this rereading offers not only an alternative view of Luther’s soteriology; much rather, it has extensive pneumatological implications as well.2 These latter ramifications are of particular import to this essay, which argues that a robustly pneumatological stream extends from the theology of Luther—a stream that is altogether absent from the theological lineage of Melanchthon. This posited stream is situated outside of the historical purview of either of these Reformers, and thus, no claim is being made concerning the purposeful intention of either thinker.

      Nevertheless, the existence of pneumatological differences in Luther and Melanchthon’s theology bore (and continues to bear) influence on countless metaphysical frameworks. Due to the sweeping nature of this claim, the following analysis is at best a cursory exercise that aims to be illustrative, not exhaustive, of the influence of Luther’s pneumatology upon later thinkers and their respective philosophical and theological outlooks. Additionally, the doctrinal stream that is being suggested has been conceptually delimited only to pneumatological concerns—no assertion is made concerning strict genealogical relations between theologians, nor of orthodox or heterodox theological positions. With this in mind, we may turn to the succeeding remarks, which are structured as follows: first, an overview which delineates significant differences between Luther and Melanchthon in their conceptions of the Trinity and in their conceptions of the doctrine of justification, with an emphasis on their pneumatological implications; second, an examination of the presence and influence of Luther’s pneumatology in the philosophy of German idealist Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; third, a presentation elucidating how Hegel’s reimagining of Luther’s pneumatology formatively shaped the theology of twenteith-century Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner; and lastly, a brief conclusion which synthesizes these findings both for future research and present reflection.

      The Reformers: Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon

Luther and Melanchthon formed an unlikely duo in the early days of the Reformation. While Luther was known for his acerbic temperament and unsystematic thinking, Melanchthon has been described as charitable, lucid, and coherent.3 Moreover, while Luther was trained in monastic theology, Melanchthon was educated in intellectual humanism.4 Still, “duo”—if carrying the sense of equality in stature—may be a misleading descriptor as their relationship was asymmetrical: Luther was a larger-than-life personality and leader whereas Melanchthon was the spokesperson and devotee. Melanchthon considered Luther “the Elijah” of the present age and stated that he “would rather die than be separated from Luther.”5 But despite both his “junior status” and lack of recognition outside of the academy, it was Melanchthon’s systematic presentation of Luther’s theology that facilitated its assimilation within sixteenth-century scholarly circles and provided the framework for modern Lutheranism. Though to be clear, this ‘systematized presentation’ was anything but a regurgitation of Luther’s sentiments. Concerning this, Samuel Powell rightly states that “the thoughts of Luther and Melanchthon were capable of leading in several directions.”6 Indeed, the succeeding decades of theological development engendered substantial doctrinal divergences between them, an occurrence Paul Hinlicky brilliantly notes in a humorous assessment of Mark Mattes’ “test of genuine Luther-theology”—a metric that Hinlicky claims would exclude Luther himself from “genuine Lutheran theology!”7

      The Trinity

Luther’s Trinitarian theology is firmly rooted within the Western Christian tradition,8 as evidenced by what he considers to be the three symbols of the Christian faith: the Apostles’ Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the hymn Te Deum Laudamus.9 For Luther, this historical tethering of his Trinitarian claims to patristic Christianity was necessary, as he considered the doctrine of the Trinity to be one of “the sublime articles of the divine majesty” that were “not matters of dispute or contention” between Protestant and Catholic churches.10 However, unlike his scholastic predecessors, Luther did not spend time speculatively explicating the Trinity via logic and philosophy. Rather, he relied upon a scripturally-grounded Trinitarian framework; indeed, it undergirded every one of his doctrinal commitments.11

Regin Prenter presses Luther’s Trinitarian-oriented framework further, noting that it is not merely the Trinity, but rather “the concept of the Holy Spirit [that] completely dominates Luther’s theology.”12 Though a bold pronouncement laid upon the Christocentric Luther, Prenter’s assertion is not unwarranted. In the final section of the Large Catechism concerning the Creed, Luther reverses the order of the Trinity to reflect the Christian’s encounter with God. Concerning this re-ordering, Timothy J. Wengert draws three conclusions: first, that “Luther’s understanding of the Holy Spirit holds the key to his Trinitarian theology”; second, that Luther’s understanding of the Holy Spirit leads to his description of the Trinity; and lastly, that “it is the Holy Spirit who turned Luther’s (and turns our) understanding of the Trinity on its head.”13 Pekka Kärkkäinen advances a conceptually similar argument in Luther’s trinitarische Theologie Des Heiligen Geistes, arguing that Luther exhibits strong pneumatological commitments in doctrines historically grounded in the Trinity.14 One example he offers to support this claim comes from Luther’s commentary on the epistle to the Galatians, wherein Luther posits a strong, unified relationship between the Spirit and faith, with the promise of faith being fulfilled by the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer.15

This reading of Luther is corroborated and expanded upon by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, who believes that Luther’s pneumatological outlook is central to his theology of the law, word, and sacraments. V-M. Kärkkäinen claims that there “is not a single doctrine in all theology in which the activity of the Spirit was not fundamental” for Luther.16 To be sure, this does not mean that Luther was proto-Pentecostal. He was explicitly Christocentric and intended to ground every doctrinal position in both the person and work of Christ.17 Still, V-M. Kärkkäinen asserts that this healthy Christocentrism provided a prominent role for the Holy Spirit in Luther’s theology. For Luther, the Holy Spirit is the primary agent who testifies concerning Christ’s person and mediates Christ’s work. Stated differently, Luther argued that Christ’s personality and activity were both matched by the Spirit’s testimony. Lastly, V-M.Kärkkäinen also notes Luther’s strong emphasis upon the interrelationship between the outward and inward works of the Spirit—an emphasis that is particularly noteworthy when contrasting him with Melanchthon. These dual-concerns formatively shaped Luther’s pneumatology, as he prioritized both the “outer” way that God approaches humankind through the preached Word and sacraments as well as the “inner” way God approaches humankind—through the Holy Spirit and pneumatologically-infused gifts.18 Because of these dual-commitments, Luther believed that there was an “incarnational” aspect of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, he persuasively argued that the real presence of God in Christ is analogous