Martin Luther, Augustinianism, and Augustine
Summary and Keywords
Though it is well-known that Martin Luther stood in some connection to the late medieval theologians of his Order and that he intensively studied Augustine’s works in the mid-1510s, the exact nature of the influence either or both exercised upon the development of his theology is disputed. Arguably his adoption of advanced anti-Pelagian convictions aligns him with Gregory of Rimini contra pelagianos modernos in the realm of scholastic theology, while the pastoral theology he imbibed from Staupitz places him in a living tradition of “Augustinian Frömmigkeitstheologie” within the O.E.S.A. (the Hermit Order of St. Augustine). However, the most important impetus Luther received from late medieval Augustinianism was its determination to do theology in conversation with Augustine’s own works. Probably in 1514, Luther read the anti-Pelagian writings contained in the 1506 Amerbach edition of the Opera Omnia, and made his own both the iustitia passiva from sp. litt. 9.15 and the nexus of doctrines associated with residual “sin” in the baptized, which was increasingly emphasized in Augustine’s later works against Julian. Though young Friar Martin’s “Augustinianism” shifted in several respects, it possessed an enduring significance in Luther’s evangelical theology.
Augustine writes nothing trenchantly about the faith, except when he writes against the Pelagians: they woke Augustine up and made a man out of him.1
Reading Augustine’s Works in the Later Middle Ages
Most medieval theologians did not read Augustine directly. They first heard his voice during table readings in the monastery, or read extracts in the Glossa ordinaria, Gratian’s Decretum, or Peter Lombard’s Sentences—the latter, in effect, an Augustinian florilegium enriched with supplementary authorities.2 Since the Sentences served as the textbook of medieval theology from the 1230s, their significance as the basic conduit of Augustine’s writings to medieval theologians must not be underestimated. Specific works were of course read too, as availability permitted and interest dictated; de civitate dei and the Enarrationes in Psalmos were the most widely circulated. But the anti-Pelagian treatises were largely unknown, Thomas Aquinas’ adjustments on predestination and grace upon reading some of them in the late 1260s being a signal exception to prove the general rule (to say nothing of Thomas Bradwardine). To complicate matters further, nearly two-thirds of the incunables published under Augustine’s name prior to the sixteenth century were actually pseudo-augustiniana.3
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, two—at times interrelated—movements began to alter the reception of Augustine’s works. There were, first, developments within the Augustinian Order. In the realm of high theology, Gregory of Rimini—“the best Augustine scholar of the Middle Ages”—and other O.E.S.A. theologians anchored their dogmatics in careful textual study of Augustine’s works. By 1347, Bartholomew of Urbino completed the Milleloquium Sancti Augustini, an anthology compiling some 15,000 passages from Augustine’s works in 1,081 thematic entries alphabetically arranged.4 Finally, Saak’s research in the writings of Jordan of Quedlinburg demonstrates the marked influence of Augustine upon the mid-level Frömmigkeitstheologie of at least one of the order’s houses of studies.5
Beginning with Petrarch, close engagement with Augustine’s works also characterized not a few leading Renaissance humanists. Though the ends to which they put their Augustine research were of quite another kind, their concern for textual precision united them in a common purpose with the O.E.S.A. theologians. These variously motivated returns ad fontes augustini culminated in the critical editions that appeared in the early sixteenth century: Johannes Amerbach’s edition of the Opera Omnia in eleven quarto volumes at Basel in 1506, and Erasmus’s (also at Basel) in 1528/9.6
“Augustinian” Theologies in the Later Middle Ages7
(a) Definition. The terms “Augustinian” and “Augustinianism” are notoriously difficult to define and use properly. David Steinmetz’s fivefold typology is a good place to begin,8 with special reference to the theology of grace: (1) In the vaguest sense, the theology of the entire Latin West was “Augustinian” one way or another—in the broad contours of its trinitarianism, ecclesiology, sacramental theology, etc., if not in its theology of grace; and where the anti-Pelagian Augustine was opposed, his earlier works against the Manicheans were enlisted against him. In this sense, every commentator on the Sentences was at least faintly “Augustinian,” including Gabriel Biel. (2) In the work of Trapè, Trapp, Zumkeller, and Saak, “Augustinian” refers to the theology (or Frömmigkeitstheologie) they argue characterized the Augustinian Order as a whole.9 (3) Or else, as for A. V. Mueller and Heiko Oberman, it may refer to a distinct lineage of theologians within the Order, rather than the Order as a whole.10 (4) It sometimes refers, as Steinmetz has it, to the theological “right-wing” of the late Middle Ages, that is, to theologians further advanced than Thomas Aquinas in the anti-Pelagian theology of grace who took their Augustine “without ice or water.” Bradwardine and Rimini were rock-ribbed “Augustinians” in this sense, as was Staupitz.11 (5) Finally, “Augustinian” can be defensibly used to describe a theologian who embodies a tendency in Augustine but advances beyond his original position. Luther, for example, though less faithful to the letter of Augustine in regard to merit, is arguably more “Augustinian” than Aquinas in spirit.
(b) Late Medieval Augustinianism. In light of this variety of usages, to speak of a school of Augustinian theology in the late Middle Ages is at best premature. There are, however, a few lines of argument to draw out of the scholarship in order to grasp better the nature of the peculiar brand of “Augustinianism” that Luther arrived at in the 1510s.
(1) Rock-ribbed Augustinian theology. If Trapè, Trapp, and Zumkeller came up short of demonstrating the existence of a single schola augustiniana moderna united by a common theological program, still their research brought to light vital currents of resurgent Augustinian theologies in the late Middle Ages. Shared convictions about absolute predestination, original sin, the gratuity of justification, gratia sanans, the need for auxilium dei speciale in every good work, the insufficiency of merit, and the primacy of love unite Gregory of Rimini, Simon Fidati, Hugh of Orvieto, and John Staupitz in closer bonds of theological consanguinity with one another than any of them share with (say) Thomas Aquinas. On their own, the similarities that obtain between such “Augustinians” as these are insufficient proof of causal relationships; Rimini, for example, exercised little if any influence on Staupitz.12 Furthermore, rigorously grace-oriented Augustinianism was neither the exclusive preserve of the O.E.S.A. (consider Bradwardine) nor the sole tenable position within it. Granted these caveats, Oberman’s insistence that the young Luther’s enthusiasm for the anti-Pelagian Augustine be understood against the background of such advanced Augustinian theologies as these is sound.
(2) Augustinian Frömmigkeitstheologie. In addition to the variety of “Augustinianisms” that found expression in the high theology of the university, Saak draws attention to the pastoral or piety-oriented theology of the houses of study within the O.E.S.A. Since the basic theological training of Augustinian priests and preachers took place in the studium generale, the work of a lector like Jordan of Quedlinburg may be more representative of a common theology within the Order than that of a master like Rimini. Saak argues convincingly that Jordan’s pastoral theology of grace was “thoroughly Augustinian” in the rock-ribbed sense, undergirded by predestination and emphasizing adoption through Christ’s blood by grace and faith, the need for auxilium gratiae dei to rise again from sin, the imperfections of the saints, and the impossibility of merit apart from grace.13 The effort to prove that an “Augustinian” piety-theology such as Jordan’s suffused the Order as an institution is harder to sustain; after all, John Paltz wrote his Coelifoedina in the Erfurt studium.14 Even so, Saak’s work on Jordan demonstrates the presence of a living tradition of grace-oriented Augustinian spiritual theology in the O.E.S.A. If Luther did not encounter this Frömmigkeitstheologie in Erfurt, he found it in Staupitz.
(3) Reading Augustine. For the formation of both kinds of “Augustinian” theologies, the direct and extensive reading of Augustine’s works was of great importance. Giles of Rome himself was less a Thomist influenced by Augustine than a student of Augustine “with a touch of a Thomist.” For Rimini, the philosophical shift to the via moderna did nothing to allay his commitment to the theology of grace: for it wasn’t allegiance to the theology of his Order, but his reading of the “authentic Augustine” in his anti-Pelagian works, which made him a rock-ribbed Augustinian theologian.15 Similarly neither Jordan nor Staupitz became Augustinian theologians by reading Giles or Rimini; they read Augustine for themselves, and drew their own conclusions.16 Luther never proved himself a truer son of his Order than when he did the same thing in the mid-1510s.
What Kind of “Augustinian” Theologian Was Martin Luther?
In the scholarship, three long-standing debates converge in this question. First, is “Late Medieval Augustinianism” as a school in some way decisive for the genesis of Luther’s early theology? Second, which of Augustine’s works influenced him most—either because he grasped Augustine’s sense well, or because of a “productive misunderstanding”? Third, does his Reformation theology jettison a transitional Augustinianism? Before gesturing toward possible solutions to these contested questions, Luther’s knowledge of Augustine’s works must first be established.
(a) Young Luther’s knowledge of Augustine. Though the exact process by which Luther came to be acquainted with Augustine’s works cannot be ascertained with certainty, the rough outline is clear enough.17 The first hard textual evidence of an encounter dates to 1509/10, when Luther lectured on the Sentences and also left behind marginal notes on his copies of de trinitate, de civitate dei, and a collection of Augustinian opuscula (of which two-thirds were spurious).18 These notes, brief as they are, reveal a sturdy Erfurt Ockhamist. On Sent. II d. 32, for example, Luther rejects Peter’s definition of original sin as concupiscence and argues that in the baptized the latter is not strictly an “evil” but merely a “weight or inclination toward evil.”19 This is rather telling, for it reveals Luther engaging Peter’s Augustinianism and rejecting it in the manner he learned from Biel. Just five years later, in the scholia on Rom. 4:7, Luther has completed an about-face. Augustine’s de nuptiis et concupiscentia 1.25.28 (imprecisely quoted20) proves that concupiscence in the baptized is not only an evil but “sin,” though it isn’t imputed against them; and as for Biel and his ilk: Sawtheologen.21 In the interim, Luther had read—“devoured,” as he later put it22—the anti-Pelagian writings bound up in the eighth volume of Amerbach’s 1506 edition of the Opera Omnia. And reading Augustine changed his mind. When Luther obtained vol. 8, read it, and digested its contents is debatable. Probably after the Dictata on Psalms 32, for its first six verses are a locus classicus for the Pauline/Augustinian doctrine of the non-imputation of residual “sin” in the saints (cf. Rom. 4:6–8), and at this stage in late 1513 or early 1514 Luther shows no inklings of it. But later on in 1514, in the lecture on Psalms 71:2, the Augustinian doctrine is operative: remnants of original sin (reliquiae peccati originalis) remain after baptism.23 Interestingly, in the same lecture Luther begins to speak of iustitia in the manner of Augustine’s de spiritu et littera, namely, as the gift by which God makes the sinner righteous.24 These emerging emphases—both of which he’d already met with in the Sentences if not in his first go-around with Augustine in 1509/10—suggest that Luther had begun to study the anti-Pelagian works in 1514. By the time he preached on the feast of Mary’s conception in December the same year, Luther quotes nupt. conc. 1.25.28 explicitly (this time as well, imprecisely) and interprets it as he will in the lectures on Romans.25 With some confidence, then, Luther’s anti-Pelagian or “Augustinian” turn can be dated to 1514. In the next two years, Luther filled his lectures with excerpts from the anti-Pelagian works and his letters with exhortations to read Augustine, especially sp. litt., de peccatorum meritis et remissione, contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, and contra Iulianum.26
(b) Luther and Late Medieval Augustinianism. Despite learned efforts over the course of the last century, there is still no scholarly consensus regarding the relationship between Luther’s Reformation theology and that of his Order and/or “forerunners” within it. In reply to the provocations of Heinrich Denifle, Mueller argued in 1912 that Gregory of Rimini, Simon Fidati, Hugh of Orvieto, Jacob Perez Valencia, and other O.E.S.A. men were genuine precursors of Luther’s theology.27 Eduard Stakemeier countered that Girolamo Seripando, not Luther, was the real champion of Augustinianism in the sixteenth century.28 Trapp and Zumkeller, the modern experts on the theology of their Order, acknowledged some likenesses but were generally keen to distance Luther from the schola Augustiniana moderna.29 Oberman joined hands with their research into the theology of the late Middle Ages, but in effect revived Mueller’s thesis in a more sophisticated fashion: there was an “Augustine Renaissance” in the late Middle Ages; it formed the occasio proxima for Luther’s theological revolution; and the 1508 statute instituting the “via gregorii” at the University of Wittenberg hints at a more direct causal relationship between Rimini and Luther.30 First Leif Grane, then David Steinmetz rejected Oberman’s thesis as largely an argument from silence.31 Oberman is right to underscore the strong similarities that obtain between the late medieval Augustinians and Luther; in itself, however, this does not prove a causal relationship. Luther does not cite Rimini until 1519,32 at least four years after his enthusiasm for the anti-Pelagian Augustine took root. He never cites the works of Fidati, Orvieto, or Valencia despite the fact that they were available to him in Wittenberg. So it is simpler to posit a common source, which Grane and Steinmetz locate in Augustine himself: in essence seconding the earlier judgments of Adolf Hamel and Bernhard Lohse.33 Manfred Schulze defended Oberman’s thesis in 1981,34 but Markus Wriedt, Volker Leppin, Risto Saarinen, and Jairzinho Lopes Pereira have followed Grane and Steinmetz in emphasizing the immediate influence (via Amerbach, that is) of the anti-Pelagian Augustine.35 In a sense, Saak has recuperated the Oberman thesis by shifting its focus from the high theology of Rimini et al. to the grace-oriented “Augustinian Frömmigkeitstheologie” he argues characterized the O.E.S.A. monasteries and studia. Regardless of its overall merits, Saak’s argument is useful vis-à-vis the role Staupitz played in Luther’s spiritual formation. Indeed, in the person of Staupitz the dogmatic anti-Pelagian Augustinianism of leading O.E.S.A. theologians, the pastoral theology epitomized by Jordan of Quedlinburg (if not by John Paltz), and the Order’s characteristic impulse to read and resource Augustine’s works directly all converge. Here if anywhere a definite causal link between late medieval Augustinianism and Luther is to be found. “Staupicius hat die doctrinam angefangen.”36
(c) Luther’s Augustine. The decisive question, then, as Grane rightly urged, is which of Augustine’s works exercised the greatest influence on Luther’s theology. Broad-brush, the answer is simple enough: the anti-Pelagian writings in Amerbach’s eighth volume. Grane noted that c. Iul. is the most commonly cited work in the 1515/16 Romans lectures. He also recognized the disproportionate significance of the single line from nupt. conc. 1.25.28 referred to above: “… das wichtigste überhaupt, das Luther bei Augustin gefunden hat.”37 But in Grane’s judgment, sp. litt. still took the cake: the other anti-Pelagian works, while not unimportant, were subordinate to its influence on the young Luther.38 Lohse had argued the same point a decade earlier: sp. litt. is the real “hub” of the Augustine-Luther relationship, “since no other writing of the bishop of Hippo stands so close to Luther’s Reformation theology.”39
The reason for this prioritization is not hard to find. In the 1545 preface to his Latin works, Luther describes his “Durchbruch” into the meaning of Romans 1:17 and the gift-character of the righteousness of God: “The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which the merciful God justifies us through faith.”40 He then continues: “Later I read Augustine’s On the Spirit and the Letter, where beyond hope I found that he too interpreted the righteousness of God in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when he justifies us.”41 Here Luther remembers, well, Augustine’s exegesis of Romans 3:20ff at sp. litt. 9.15. Apart from the law and without its help, iustitia dei is revealed: “… not that by which God is righteous, but that with which he clothes a man when he justifies the sinner.” In deciding to privilege sp. litt. in their historical reconstructions, Lohse and Grane followed the lead of the old Luther’s reminiscence. And in fact, despite the legendary problems involved in lining up the 1545 preface with the textual data of the 1510s, there is no reason to question the importance of this early (and arguably most winsome) anti-Pelagian treatise for the development of the young Luther’s theology. But given the preponderance of excerpts in the Romans lectures from Augustine’s later writings against Julian of Eclanum—above all c. Iul. and nupt. conc. 1.25.28—neither is there good reason to unduly emphasize sp. litt. at their expense.
This is not a pedantic concern, for the decision to prioritize sp. litt. in the interpretation of Luther’s theology prematurely drives a wedge between him and Augustine. The problem goes back to the 1545 preface and the backhanded compliment that follows Luther’s warm praise of sp. litt.: “And although this was still said imperfectly, and he did not explain everything clearly about imputation, still it pleased me that the righteousness of God by which we are justified was taught.”42 Thirty years after Friar Martin ingested the anti-Pelagian writings, the old Reformer is providing ground rules for how to understand the difference between his theology of justification and Augustine’s: both teach that righteousness is the gift of God’s grace, but only Luther clearly grasped Paul’s doctrine of imputation. Remarks such as this tell us more about the nascent processes of “Lutheran” self-definition in the early stages of confessionalization than about Luther’s painstaking engagement with the works of Augustine in the mid-1510s.
Adolf Hamel’s 1934/5 Der junge Luther und Augustin charted an historiographically wiser course. Rather than imposing a quasi-deductive hermeneutical framework, Hamel began with the 1509 marginalia and worked his way forward. If this path is taken, iustitia and sp. litt. by no means recede into the background: “By the righteousness of God we must not understand the righteousness by which he is righteous in himself, but the righteousness by which we are made righteous by him. This happens through faith in the gospel. Hence blessed Augustine writes in Chapter 11 of On the Spirit and the Letter: ‘Thus it is called the righteousness of God because by imparting it he makes righteous people.’”43 But other themes equally vital to the origins of Reformation theology come to the fore as well, not least the status of concupiscence in the baptized. Indeed, if it can be agreed that the autobiographical material in these early lectures is of greater value than the 1545 preface for understanding Luther in the mid-1510s, then concupiscentia and its forgiveness in the context of monastic Bußtheologie, rather than iustitia per se as a theological concept (“the doctrine of justification”), might have been his most pressing concern. On this question, sp. litt. took a backseat to Augustine’s later works against Julian: the very works that Grane recognized are most frequently cited by Luther in the lectures on Romans.
So, for example, in the 1515 scholia on Rom 4:7 Luther relates a dogmatic/spiritual conundrum that troubled him. Biel had taught him that after baptism or penance, sin was entirely removed from the graced person. But monastic piety required him to regard himself a sinner like others. Meditating on past sins was counterproductive, because it called into question the reality of forgiveness. Scholastic theology counseled presumption; humility-piety, despair. In the event, it was neither Paul’s doctrine of justification sola fide nor sp. litt. that provided the solution, but rather nupt. conc. 1.25.28: “Blessed Augustine says very clearly that ‘sin/concupiscence is forgiven in baptism, not so that it no longer exists, but so that it is not imputed.’” Once Luther knew that “… it was a true forgiveness indeed, but that this is nevertheless not a removal of sin except in hope, i.e., that it must be taken away and that grace has been given which begins to take it away, so that it is not imputed as sin,” the path of humility lay open before him, freed from the trap of despair. He left the confessional a sinner, because the concupiscence he took with him when he went was sin; but he was forgiven too.44
The same problems animate the early 1516 scholia on Romans 7, which is permeated by extracts from Augustine’s works against Julian. Luther’s “exegesis” of v. 18 consists in a long extract from c. Iul. 3.26.62 rather than any interpretation of his own. To this, he simply adds a personal testimony to the power of Augustine’s theology to bring solatium to vexed souls like his: “… we are now warmed by the gift of a more quiet comfort and are relieved more easily of scruples of conscience.” In this case, not by iustitia dei passiva or Christus pro me, but by the good news that the evil desires (“sin”) he continued to suffer long after baptism, profession of monastic vows, and repeated acts of penance were—on the perichoretic authority of St. Paul and Augustine—a normal part of the holy life.45
In fact, in 1515/16 Luther is piecing together insights drawn from Augustine’s entire anti-Pelagian corpus. A bit ironically in light of the 1545 preface, sp. litt. has less to do with what he would later identify as the doctrine of justification and more to do with the real renewal of sinners by healing grace. As for imputation, although the positive reckoning of iustitia aliena is occasionally articulated in the Romans lectures with great power,46 at this stage the heart of the concept is the non-imputation of residual sin: a doctrine he learned from Augustine, who explained it quite “clearly” in his works against Julian. In the Romans 4:7 scholia, for example, just a few pages ahead of the nupt. conc. 1.25.28 excerpt, Luther explains that “our righteousness from God is the very turning toward the good and the avoiding of evil which has been given to us inwardly by grace.” The sin that remains in grace-renewed saints is the “tinder” (fomes) of concupiscence described in Romans 7, namely, the inner desires, affections, and inclinations that give rise to actual sins of thought, word, or deed. The former, not the latter, are Paul’s real concern in Romans 4:7, David’s at Psalms 32:1ff. and 51:3–4, and John’s in 1 John 1:8. “This indeed is evil, since it is truly sin, which God forgives through his non-imputation out of mercy toward all who acknowledge and confess and hate it and plead to be healed from it.”47 In upholding real renewal through the inner gift of iustitia nostra ex deo, Luther advances the core contention of sp. litt.; while the interrelated doctrines of the sinfulness of evil desire, the merciful non-imputation of this “sin” to those who resist it, and the need for ongoing healing by grace reflect the evolving emphases of the later works contra Iulianum.
(d) Luther’s interpretation of Augustine. The question whether Luther read Augustine rightly on such themes has been disputed since the Reformation. Most of the scholarship has agreed that he didn’t, but for different reasons. Heinrich Denifle argued that Luther misrepresented Augustine’s darker evaluations of concupiscence in order to justify his forensicism.48 Rudolf Hermann and Grane preferred to think in terms of a productive misunderstanding.49 Hamel, though similar in some respects, was more nuanced and also more sympathetic in his judgment of Luther’s skill as an interpreter of Augustine.50 The debate is intricate and cannot be adjudicated here, but a brief account of the central issues at stake is needed in order to approach the question of how Luther’s Reformation theology relates to the “Augustinianism” he arrived at in the mid-1510s.
A good entry point is the 1516 scholia on Romans 7:17. Luther provides a basically accurate excerpt from c. Iul. 2.5.12:
We understand our vices in a catholic way: they resist the law of the mind because of the law of sin. When these vices have been separated from us, they will not be somewhere else, but having been healed in us they will be nowhere. Then why do they not perish in baptism? Or do you not yet confess that their guilt has perished, but weakness remains? Not the guilt by which they were guilty, but the guilt by which they made us guilty in the evil works to which they drew us. Neither does their weakness so remain, as if they were some kind of animals which were weakened, but they themselves are our weakness.51
In essence, Augustine is unpacking his claim at nupt. conc. 1.25.28 that “the desire of the flesh is forgiven in baptism, not so that it no longer exists, but so that it is no longer imputed as sin.” Thus here, “vices” (vitia) remain after baptism, but their guilt has perished. But is this because the vices that remain are themselves no longer “guilty” (rea)? Or do residual vices remain guilty intrinsically, yet without rendering the vice-wounded saint guilty as a person? Arguably this passage can be read either way, and Augustine—perplexingly—supplies both solutions over the long haul of the anti-Pelagian controversy.52 (Cf., e.g., nupt. conc. 1.23.25 and c. Iul. 6.17.51.) In the Romans 7:17 scholia, Luther opts for the second option:
From this beautiful authority it is clear how concupiscence is our very weakness toward the good, which in itself is certainly guilty (rea), but nonetheless does not make us guilty (reos nos) unless we consent and work. Now something marvelous follows from this: that we are guilty and not guilty. For we ourselves are that weakness, therefore it is guilty and we ourselves are guilty, until it ceases and is healed. But we are not guilty, so long as we do not work in accord with it: for God’s mercy does not impute the guilt of the weakness (reatum infirmitatis), but the guilt of the one who consents to the weakness of the will (reatum consentientis infirmitati voluntatis).53
After citing this text in his book on the Simul, Hermann exclaimed: “Grave words, which sound just like Augustine!”54 Whether or not they are “grave” depends on one’s theology; whether they merely sound like Augustine, or in fact reproduce his theology, has been debated for 500 years and cannot be settled here. However, the interlocking “Augustinian” doctrines that Luther worked out while exegeting Paul and engaging this and other texts from Amerbach’s eighth volume can be summarized in order to bring the matter to a head. They are:
(1) In Adam, the human race fell into two calamities: vitiation and damnation.
(2) Baptismal grace forgives fully, but renews only partially.
(3) After baptism, grace-renewed people remain partly vicious too, characterized by a simultaneity of “spirit” and “flesh” within their souls.
(4) This flesh, concupiscence, weakness, law of sin, remnant of original sin, tinder of sin, vice, wound, etc. is truly “sin.”
(5) As a corollary, even the best deeds of such flesh-torn saints are “sins.”
(6) In mercy, God does not impute this “sin” against the renewed person. Though it is guilty, it does not make us guilty, for God overlooks the reatum infirmitatis.
(7) Because the renewed person’s sinful desires are his very own—“we are that weakness”—he is both “guilty” and “not guilty” at the same time.
(8) God extends the mercy of non-imputation on one condition: that the renewed person refuses to consent to his residual sinful desires. God does impute the guilt of the person who consents to the weakness of his will.
(9) Healing grace enables the renewed person to fulfill this condition; when this happens, flesh diminishes and the new creature grows.
(10) The predestined are given the necessary grace to fulfill this condition; should they fall in via, they will rise up again, and persevere to the end.
(11) No one knows for certain whether he belongs to the number of the elect. This uncertainty is spiritually useful, because it humbles pride and keeps the chosen soul in the fear of God.
Of these doctrines, #4 is the main hinge upon which the Luther-Augustine relationship turns. Augustine sometimes affirms that concupiscence in the saints is “sin” and/or that it is “guilty” (e.g., c. Iul. 6.17.51, c. Iul. op. imp. 3.210). In such cases, as noted above, he also affirms thesis #6. (He everywhere affirms the weaker form of the claim, namely, that post-baptismal concupiscence, regardless of its precise status, is not imputed as sin.) In 1518–1521, the claim that the best deeds of the saints are “sins” (#5) was perhaps the most explosive of Luther’s assertions. Augustine never said this. However, in the works against Julian he increasingly urged the “sinfulness” of the flesh—to the point of affirming thesis #4—and consequently, the need to pray for forgiveness till death. In one case well-known to Luther, after discussing Romans 7:23 and Matt. 6:9 Augustine drew this conclusion: “Therefore, all the commandments are considered (deputantur) done, when whatever does not happen is forgiven” (Retr. 1.19.3). Luther seemed to think his charged rhetoric meant nothing more.55 Augustine also never said that regenerate people are both guilty and not guilty simultaneously. However, thesis #7 (the heart of Luther’s “total simul,” which is not as daring as it is sometimes said to be) is arguably a logical consequence of theses #4ff. Luther himself seems to say as much in the excerpt cited above: “Now something marvelous follows from this …” For the rest, they are in complete agreement. Such is Luther’s “Augustinianism” on the eve of the Reformation, propelled by his controversial interpretation of Augustine.
(e) Reformation theology and Augustine. As noted earlier, a break with Augustine is often assumed to be coextensive with the breakthrough to Reformation theology: an identity-shaping narrative that originated with Luther himself.56 So, for example, Luther at table in 1532: “Since I’ve come to understand Paul, I haven’t paid attention to any doctor. They’ve all become worthless to me. At first, I devoured Augustine, I didn’t just read him. But ever since the door into Paul was opened, and I knew what justification by faith was, it was out with him!”57 Here, sola scriptura and sola fide, the so-called formal and material principles of Reformation theology, function much as they have up to the present day. On this view, Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings are accorded a significant but transitional role in his development; but once Luther grasped the gospel, the earlier Augustinianism is left behind. It is certainly true that the “evangelical” Luther was his own man: his doctrine of justification through the gift of Christ’s righteousness, bestowed in the promise of the gospel and received by faith alone, is not Augustine’s. Nevertheless, the decisiveness of a Grunddifferenz should not be exaggerated. For in the nexus of doctrines surrounding residual “sin” in the baptized, Luther continued to hew closely to Augustine after his “breakthrough,” even if the later dating of Bizer and Bayer is adopted. In essence, both the Defense and Explanation of all Articles and Against Latomus (each written in 1521) are extended arguments for the advanced “Augustinian” positions sketched in theses #4–7 above: they reveal an embattled man keenly concerned to demonstrate the fidelity of his theology to Augustine’s doctrine of real but partial renewal by grace, residual “sin,” and the non-imputation of this “sin” to those who fight against it.58 When Luther adopts the “gratia/donum” distinction from Melanchthon in Against Latomus,59 this “Augustinian” theology assumes its mature trinitarian shape: remnants of original sin remain in the saints, but its guilt is destroyed by the grace of forgiveness and righteousness in Jesus Christ and its corrupting power is broken (though not yet entirely done away with) by the renewing gift of the Holy Spirit.60 Perhaps, then, it is better to regard the novel aspects of Luther’s evangelical theology as developments within an enduring “Augustinianism,” rather than departures from it.
Review of the Literature
See the section Luther and late medieval Augustinianism, and the sections Luther’s Augustine and Luther’s interpretation of Augustine.. Further research is necessary in each of the areas discussed in this article: not just the anti-Pelagian but the anti-Julian Augustine; the various kinds of “Augustinianism” in the high and late Middle Ages; the relation of both to the genesis of Luther’s theology in the mid-1510s; and the question of how his early “Augustinianism” relates to his mature Reformation theology.
Anderas, Phillip. “Renovatio: Martin Luther’s Augustinian Theology of Holiness (1515/16 and 1535–46).” PhD diss., Marquette University, 2015.Find this resource:
Delius, Hans-Ulrich. Augustin als Quelle Luthers: Eine Materialsammlung. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1984.Find this resource:
Grane, Leif. “Gregor von Rimini und Luthers Leipziger Disputation.” Studia Theologica 22 (1968): 29–49.Find this resource:
Grane, Leif. Modus Loquendi Theologicus: Luthers Kampf um die Erneuerung der Theologie (1515–1518). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1975.Find this resource:
Grane, Leif. “Kritische Berichte. Lutherforschung und Geistesgeschichte. Auseinandersetzung mit Heiko A. Oberman.” ARG 68 (1977): 302–315.Find this resource:
Hamel, Adolf. Der junge Luther und Augustin. Ihre Beziehungen in der Rechtfertigungslehre nach Luthers ersten Vorlesungen 1509–1518 untersucht. I. Teil: Der Sententiar von 1509/10 und Exeget der Psalmen von 1513–15 in seinem Verhältnis zu Augustin. II. Teil: Der Exeget des Römerbriefes 1515/16, des Galaterbriefes 1516/17 und des Hebräerbriefes 1517/18 in seinem Verhältnis zu Augustin. Gütersloh, Germany: Verlag C. Bertelsmann, 1934/5 [Reprint: 2 Teile in 1 Band. Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms Verlag, 1980].Find this resource:
Hamm, Berndt. “Hieronymus-Begeisterung und Augustinismus vor der Reformation. Beobachtungen zur Beziehung zwischen Humanismus und Frömmigkeitstheologie (am Beispiel Nürnbergs).” In Augustine, the Harvest, and Theology (1300–1650). Edited by Kenneth Hagen, 127–135. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1990.Find this resource:
Hamm, Berndt. The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety. Edited by Robert J. Bast. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2004.Find this resource:
Hermann, Rudolf. Luthers These “Gerecht und Sünder zugleich.” Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960 .Find this resource:
Leppin, Volker. Martin Luther. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006.Find this resource:
Lohse, Bernhard. “Die Bedeutung Augustins für den jungen Luther.” In Evangelium in der Geschichte. I. Studien zu Luther und der Reformation. Edited by Leif Grane, Bernd Moeller, and Otto Hermann Pesch, 11–30. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988 .Find this resource:
Markschies, Christoph. “Taufe und Concupiscentia bei Augustinus.” In Gerecht und Sünder zugleich? Ökumenische Klärungen. Edited by Theodor Schneider and Gunther Wenz, 92–108. Freiburg, Germany; Herder, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001.Find this resource:
Nisula, Timo. Augustine and the Functions of Concupiscence. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2012.Find this resource:
Oberman, Heiko A. “Headwaters of the Reformation: Initia Lutheri—Initia Reformationis.” In idem, Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era: Papers for the Fourth International Congress for Luther Research, 40–88. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1974.Find this resource:
Oberman, Heiko A. Werden und Wertung der Reformation. Tübingen, Germany, 1977.Find this resource:
Otten, Willemien. “The Reception of Augustine in the Early Middle Ages (c. 700–c. 1200): Presence, Absence, Reverence, and Other Modes of Appropriation.” In The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine. 3 vols. Edited by Karla Pollmann, I/23–39. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.Find this resource:
Pereira, Jairzinho Lopes. Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther on Original Sin and Justification of the Sinner. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.Find this resource:
Saak, Eric L. High Way to Heaven. The Augustinian Platform between Reform and Reformation, 1292–1524. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002.Find this resource:
Saak, Eric L. Creating Augustine: Interpreting Augustine and Augustinianism in the Later Middle Ages. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.Find this resource:
Saak, Eric L. “Augustine and his Late Medieval Appropriations (1200–1500).” In The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, 3 vols. Edited by Karla Pollmann, I/39–50. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.Find this resource:
Saak, Eric L. “The Augustinian Renaissance.” ibid., I/58–68. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.Find this resource:
Saak, Eric L. “Luther, Martin.” ibid., III/1341–1346.Find this resource:
Saarinen, Risto. “Klostertheologie auf dem Weg der Ökumene: Wille und Konkupiszenz.” In Luther und das monastische Erbe. Edited by Christoph Bultmann, Volker Leppin, and Andreas Lindner, 269–290. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.Find this resource:
Saarinen, Risto. “Desire, Consent, and Sin: The Earliest Free Will Debates of the Reformation.” In Philosophy and Theology in the Long Middle Ages: A Tribute to Stephen F. Brown. Edited by Kent Emery Jr., Russell L. Friedman, and Andreas Speer, 471–483. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2011.Find this resource:
Saarinen, Risto. Weakness of Will in Renaissance and Reformation Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.Find this resource:
Schulze, Manfred. “Via Gregorii in Forschung und Quellen.” In Gregor von Rimini. Werk und Wirkung bis zur Reformation. Edited by Heiko A. Oberman, 1–126. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981.Find this resource:
Steinmetz, David C. Misericordia Dei: The Theology of Johannes von Staupitz in its Late Medieval Setting. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1968.Find this resource:
Steinmetz, David C. Luther and Staupitz: An Essay in the Intellectual Origins of the Protestant Reformation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1980.Find this resource:
Trapè, Agostino. “Scuolo Teologica e Spiritualia nell’Ordine Agostiniano.” In Sanctus Augustinus Vitae Spiritualis Magister. 2 vols. Rome: Analecta Augustiniana 1959, 2/5–75.Find this resource:
Trapp, Damasus. “Augustinian Theology of the 14th Century: Notes on Editions, Marginalia, Opinions and Book-Lore.” Augustiniana 6 (1956): 146–274.Find this resource:
Visser, Arnoud, S. Q. Reading Augustine in the Reformation: The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–1620. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.Find this resource:
Visser, Arnoud, S. Q. “Augustine in Renaissance Humanism.” In The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, 3 vols. Edited by Karla Pollmann, I/68–74. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.Find this resource:
Wriedt, Markus. “Via Augustini: Ausprägungen des spätmittelalterlichen Augustinismus in der observanten Kongregation der Augustinereremiten.” In Luther und das monastische Erbe. Edited by Christoph Bultmann, Volker Leppin, and Andreas Lindner, 9–39. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.Find this resource:
Wriedt, Markus. “Produktives Mißverständnis? Zur Rezeption der Theologie des lateinischen Kirchenvaters Augustinus im Werk Martin Luthers (1483–1546).” In Augustinus: Spuren und Spiegelungen seines Denkens. Band 1. Von den Anfängen bis zur Reformation. Edited by Norbert Fischer, 211–223. Hamburg, Germany: Felix Meiner, 2009.Find this resource:
Zumkeller, Adolar. “Martin Luther and his Order.” In Augustinus: Spuren und Spiegelungen seines Denkens. Band 1. Von den Anfängen bis zur Reformation. Edited by Norbert Fischer, , 207–237. Hamburg, Germany: Felix Meiner, 2009.Find this resource:
Zumkeller, Adolar. Erbsünde, Gnade, Rechtfertigung und Verdienst nach der Lehre der Erfurter Augustinertheologen des Spätmittelalters. Würzburg, Germany: Augustinus-Verlag, 1984.Find this resource:
Zumkeller, Adolar. “The Augustinian School of the Middle Ages.” In idem, Theology and History of the Augustinian School in the Middle Ages. Edited by John E. Rotelle, 11–79. Augustinian Heritage Institute: Augustinian Press, 1996 .Find this resource:
(1.) WA TR 4:56, 3–5, no. 3984 (1538).
(2.) Berndt Hamm, “Hieronymus-Begeisterung und Augustinismus vor der Reformation. Beobachtungen zur Beziehung zwischen Humanismus und Frömmigkeitstheologie (am Beispiel Nürnbergs),” in Augustine, the Harvest, and Theology (1300–1650), ed. Kenneth Hagen (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1990), 127–235, here 135.
(3.) Joseph Wawrykow, “Scholasticism, Late,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 750–754; Arnoud S. Q. Visser, Reading Augustine in the Reformation: The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–1620 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 15ff.; Willemien Otten, “The Reception of Augustine in the Early Middle Ages (c. 700–c. 1200): Presence, Absence, Reverence, and Other Modes of Appropriation,” in The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, 3 vols., ed. Karla Pollmann (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), I/23–39; and Eric L. Saak, “Augustine and his Late Medieval Appropriations (1200–1500),” ibid., I/39–50.
(4.) Damasus Trapp, “Augustinian Theology of the 14th Century: Notes on Editions, Marginalia, Opinions and Book-Lore,” Augustiniana 6 (1956): 146–274; Adolar Zumkeller, “The Augustinian School of the Middle Ages,” in idem, Theology and History of the Augustinian School in the Middle Ages, ed. John E. Rotelle (Augustinian Heritage Institute: Augustinian Press, 1996 ), 11–79, here 13–14; and Saak, “The Augustinian Renaissance,” in The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, I/58–68.
(5.) Eric L. Saak, High Way to Heaven. The Augustinian Platform between Reform and Reformation, 1292–1524 (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002), esp. ch. 4.
(6.) Charles Trinkhaus, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought (London: Constable, 1970); William Bouwsma, “The Two Faces of Humanism: Stoicism and Augustinianism in Renaissance Thought,” in Itinerarium italicum: The Profile of the Italian Renaissance in the Mirror of its European Transformations, eds. Heiko Augustinus Oberman and Thomas A. Brady Jr. (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1975), 3–60; Visser, Reading Augustine, 13–27; and idem, “Augustine in Renaissance Humanism,” The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, I/68–74.
(7.) For overviews, see Saak, High Way to Heaven, 683–691; idem, Creating Augustine: Interpreting Augustine and Augustinianism in the Later Middle Ages (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); idem, “Augustine and his Late Medieval Appropriations (1200–1500)”; and Markus Wriedt, “Via Augustini: Ausprägungen des spätmittelalterlichen Augustinismus in der observanten Kongregation der Augustinereremiten,” in Luther und das monastische Erbe, eds. Christoph Bultmann, Volker Leppin, and Andreas Lindner (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 9–39.
(8.) David C. Steinmetz, Luther and Staupitz: An Essay in the Intellectual Origins of the Protestant Reformation (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1980), 13ff.
(9.) Agostino Trapè, “Scuolo Teologica e Spiritualia nell’Ordine Agostiniano,” Sanctus Augustinus Vitae Spiritualis Magister, 2 vols. (Rome: Analecta Augustiniana, 1959): 2/5–75; Trapp, “Augustinian Theology of the Fourteenth Century”; Zumkeller, “The Augustinian School”; idem, Erbsünde, Gnade, Rechtfertigung und Verdienst nach der Lehre der Erfurter Augustinertheologen des Spätmittelalters (Würzburg, Germany: Augustinus-Verlag, 1984); and Saak, High Way to Heaven.
(10.) A. V. Mueller, Luthers theologischen Quellen (Giessen, 1912); Heiko A. Oberman, “Headwaters of the Reformation: Initia Lutheri—Initia Reformationis,” in idem, ed., Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era: Papers for the Fourth International Congress for Luther Research (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1974), 40–88; and idem, Werden und Wertung der Reformation (Tübingen, Germany, 1977), 82–140.
(11.) Steinmetz defended this use of “Augustinian” in his dissertation, Misericordia Dei: The Theology of Johannes von Staupitz in its Late Medieval Setting (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1968), 30–34.
(12.) Steinmetz, Luther and Staupitz, 16, 27f.
(13.) Saak, High Way to Heaven, 411ff.
(14.) On Paltz, see Berndt Hamm, The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety, ed. Robert J. Bast (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2004), 91ff.
(15.) Zumkeller, “The Augustinian School,” 13.
(16.) Steinmetz, Luther and Staupitz, 26–30.
(17.) For Luther’s knowledge of Augustine’s works in general, see Hans-Ulrich Delius, Augustin als Quelle Luthers: Eine Materialsammlung (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1984).
(18.) WA 9:2–94. Luther was taken in by some, but not all, of the spurious works: WA 9:6, 10–11; 9.:4, 23–25.
(19.) WA 9:75–76.
(20.) Augustine has: dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum non inputetur (BA 23.116–8). Luther writes: Sed b. Aug preclarissime dixit “peccatumconcupiscentiam in baptismate remitti, non vt non sit, sed vt non imputetur.” WA 56:273, 10–274, 1.
(21.) WA 56:274, 14: cf. LW 25:261.
(22.) WA TR 1:140, 3–9, no. 347 (Rörer, Summer/Fall 1532).
(23.) WA 3:453, 10; LW 10:395. Cf. Adolf Hamel, Der junge Luther und Augustin. Ihre Beziehungen in der Rechtfertigungslehre nach Luthers ersten Vorlesungen 1509–1518 untersucht. I. Teil: Der Sententiar von 1509/10 und Exeget der Psalmen von 1513–15 in seinem Verhältnis zu Augustin. II. Teil: Der Exeget des Römerbriefes 1515/16, des Galaterbriefes 1516/17 und des Hebräerbriefes 1517/18 in seinem Verhältnis zu Augustin (Gütersloh, Germany: Verlag C. Bertelsmann, 1934/5 [Reprint: 2 Teile in 1 Band. Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms Verlag, 1980.]), I/110–113.
(24.) WA 3:458, 8–10; LW 10:402.
(25.) WA 4:691, 30–33: 4. Cum dicitur in baptismo originale peccatum dimitti, quomodo ergo tu dicis, quod remaneat et cum eo pugnandum esse? Respondet Divus Augustinus: “Dimittitur quidem peccatum gentilitium in baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut non imputetur.”
(26.) Letter #27, 19 Okt. 1516, WA BR 1:70–71: LW 48:23–26.
(27.) Mueller, Luthers theologischen Quellen.
(28.) Eduard Stakemeier, Der Kampf um Augustin auf dem Tridentinum (Paderborn, 1937). Hubert Jedin et al. begged to differ; but cf. Peter Walter, “Die bleibende Sündigkeit der Getauften in den Debatten und Beschlüssen des Trienter Konzils,” in Gerecht und Sünder zugleich? Ökumenische Klärungen, eds. Theodor Schneider and Gunther Wenz (Freiburg, Germany; Herder, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 268–302.
(29.) Adolar Zumkeller, “Martin Luther and his Order,” in idem, Theology and History of the Augustinian School in the Middle Ages, ed. John E. Rotelle (Augustinian Heritage Institute: Augustinian Press, 1996 ), 207–237.
(30.) Heiko A. Oberman, “Headwaters of the Reformation.”
(31.) Leif Grane, “Kritische Berichte. Lutherforschung und Geistesgeschichte. Auseinandersetzung mit Heiko A. Oberman,” ARG 68 (1977): 302–315; and Steinmetz, Luther and Staupitz, 23–30. Cf. the earlier article by Grane, “Gregor von Rimini und Luthers Leipziger Disputation,” Studia Theologica 22 (1968): 29–49; also Modus Loquendi Theologicus: Luthers Kampf um die Erneuerung der Theologie (1515–1518) (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1975), 30–31.
(32.) WA 2:394, 31–6: Certum est enim, Modernos (quos vocant) cum Schotistis et Thomistis in hac re (id est libero arbitrio et gratia) consentire, excepto uno Gregorio Ariminense, quem omnes damnant, qui et ipse eos Pelagianis deteriores esse et recte et efficaciter convincit. Is enim solus inter scholasticos contra omnes scholasticos recentiores cum Carolostadio, id est Augustino et Apostolo Paulo, consentit.
(33.) See Hamel, I/9–10, II/1–2; Bernhard Lohse, “Die Bedeutung Augustins für den jungen Luther,” in Evangelium in der Geschichte. I. Studien zu Luther und der Reformation, eds. Leif Grane, Bernd Moeller, and Otto Hermann Pesch (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988 ), 11–30, here 15.
(34.) Manfred Schulze, “Via Gregorii in Forschung und Quellen,” in Gregor von Rimini. Werk und Wirkung bis zur Reformation, ed. Heiko A. Oberman (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981), 1–126.
(35.) Leif Grane, Modus Loquendi, 24–31; Steinmetz, Luther and Stauptiz, 23–30; Markus Wriedt, “Via Augustini,” 35–39; idem, “Produktives Mißverständnis? Zur Rezeption der Theologie des lateinischen Kirchenvaters Augustinus im Werk Martin Luthers (1483–1546),” in Augustinus: Spuren und Spiegelungen seines Denkens. Band 1. Von den Anfängen bis zur Reformation, ed. Norbert Fischer (Hamburg, Germany: Felix Meiner, 2009), 211–223, esp. 214–215; Volker Leppin, Martin Luther (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006), 65, 93–95; Jairzinho Lopes Pereira, Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther on Original Sin and Justification of the Sinner (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013); cf. Saarinen’s foreword to Pereira’s book, p. 11. See too Phillip Anderas, “Renovatio: Martin Luther’s Augustinian Theology of Holiness (1515/16 and 1535–46)” (PhD diss., Marquette University, 2015).
(36.) WA TR 1:245, 12, no. 526, in 1533.
(37.) Grane, Modus Loquendi, 35.
(38.) Grane, Modus Loquendi, 27–35.
(39.) Lohse, “Die Bedeutung Augustins für den jungen Luther,” 15.
(40.) WA 54:186, 6–7, LW 34:337.
(41.) WA 54:186, 16–18; LW 34:337.
(42.) WA 54:186, 18–20; LW 34:337.
(43.) Scholia on Rom. 1:17. LW 56:172, 3–7; LW 25:151.
(44.) WA 56:273, 3–274, 11.
(45.) WA 56:354, 14–26.
(46.) WA 56:158, 10–14; LW 25:136; WA 56:204, 15–28; LW 25:188; WA 56:267, 1–7: LW 25:254; WA 56:347, 9–14; LW 25:336; cf. WA BR 1:35, 15–36, no. 11 (April 8, 1516).
(47.) WA 56:271, 2–23; cf. LW 25:259.
(48.) Heinrich Denifle, Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwickelung (Mainz, Germany: von Kirchheim & Co., 1904–19066), esp. I/2.438–519.
(49.) Rudolf Hermann, Luthers These “Gerecht und Sünder zugleich” (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960 ); and Grane, Modus Loquendi.
(50.) Hamel, Der junge Luther under Augustin, esp. II/16–19.
(51.) WA 56:351, 3–10; cf. LW 25:340.
(52.) Hamel, Der junge Luther und Augustin, I/17–23, II/14–19; Malcolm E. Alflatt, “The Development of the Idea of Involuntary Sin in St. Augustine,” Revue d’études augustiniennes 20 (1974): 113–134; Christoph Markschies, “Taufe und Concupiscentia bei Augustinus,” in Gerecht und Sünder zugleich? Ökumenische Klärungen, eds. Theodor Schneider and Gunther Wenz (Freiburg, Germany; Herder, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 92–108, esp. 102–104; Frederick Van Fleteren, “Augustine’s Evolving Exegesis of Romans 7:22–23 in its Pauline Context,” Augustinian Studies 32/1 (2001), 89–114; Risto Saarinen, “Klostertheologie auf dem Weg der Ökumene: Wille und Konkupiszenz,” in Luther und das monastische Erbe, eds. Christoph Bultmann, Volker Leppin, and Andreas Lindner (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 269–290; idem, Weakness of Will in Renaissance and Reformation Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 23–26, 119–127; idem, “Desire, Consent, and Sin: The Earliest Free Will Debates of the Reformation,” in Philosophy and Theology in the Long Middle Ages: A Tribute to Stephen F. Brown, eds. Kent Emery, Jr., Russell L. Friedman, and Andreas Speer (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2011), 471–483; Timo Nisula, Augustine and the Functions of Concupiscence (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2012), 122–127, 251, 262, 331, 345–350; and Pereira, Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther, 151–157, 179–186, 369–380.
(53.) WA 56:351, 10–17; cf. LW 25:340.
(54.) Hermann, Luthers These, 192.
(55.) See Against Latomus, WA 8:56, 15–17: Sed movit forte hominem, quod dixi, non omnia dei mandata, etiam in gratia, plene impleri in hac vita. Quae non mea, sed Augustini sententia est i. retra. xix. Also 8.93.18–25: Ex iis puto defensum nunc, Omne opus bonum esse peccatum, nisi ignoscat misericordia. Nam nec ipsi possunt negare, quod fructus referat naturam arboris. At arbor iam probata est, non sine peccato esse, licet damnato et indulto. Hic etiam Augustinus i. Retra. xix. dicit, ubi disputat, an mandata dei impleantur in hac vita, concludit: “Omnia mandata dei implentur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoscitur.” Nonne hic clare dicit, non operibus factis sed misericordia ignoscente dei mandata impleri? Quid autem ignoscitur nisi peccatum? Cf. WA TR 1:140, 7–9, no. 347 (Rörer, Summer/Fall 1532): Duae tantum insignes sententiae sunt in toto Augustino, prima: Peccatum dimittitur, non ut non sit, sed ut non damnet et dominetur; altera: Lex impletur, cum quod non fit, ignoscitur.
(56.) In addition to Hermann, Lohse, and Grane, see e.g., Philip Cary, “The Lutheran Codicil: From Augustine’s Grace to Luther’s Gospel,” Logia: A Journal of Lutheran Theology 20/4 (Reformation 2011): 5–9; or Saak, “Luther, Martin,” The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, III/1341–46, p. 1344: “Given his early enthusiasm for Aug., and especially Aug.’s anti-Pelagian works, it is surprising to note that L. seems to have left Aug. behind after his break from Rome in 1520,” de servo arbitrio being a notable exception.
(57.) WA TR 1:140, 3–7, no. 347 (Rörer, Summer/Fall 1532).
(58.) For nupt. conc. 1.25.28 in particular, see, e.g., WA 7:344, 10–12; LW 32:27–28 (Defense and Explanation), WA 8:93, 6–9; LW 32:209 (Against Latomus): Nec ego solus aut primus ex hominibus post Apostolos haec dico. Augustini verba sunt: “Remittitur in baptismo universum peccatum, non ut non sit, sed ut non imputetur.” Audis? Est peccatum etiam post remissionem, sed non imputatur.
(59.) Rolf Schäfer, “Melanchthon’s Interpretation of Romans 5.15: His Departure from the Augustinian Concept of Grace Compared to Luther’s,” in Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) and the Commentary, eds. Timothy J. Wengert and M. Patrick Graham (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 79–104.
(60.) Erwin Iserloh, “Gratia und Donum, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung nach Luthers Schrift ‘Wider den Löwener Theologen Latomus’ (1521),” in Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation. Festschrift für Ernst Bizer, eds. Luise Abramowski und J. F. Gerhard Goeters (Neukirchener, Germany: Verlag, 1969), 141–156; Simo Peura, “Christus als Gunst und Gabe. Luthers Verständnis der Rechtfertigung als Herausforderung an den ökumenischen Dialog mit der Römisch-katholischen Kirche,” in Caritas Dei. Beiträge zum Verständnis Luthers und der gegenwärtigen Ökumene. Festschrift für Tuomo Mannermaa zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. Oswald Bayer, Robert W. Jenson, and Simo Knuuttila (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft, 1997), 340–363.