A Critique of the Radical Lutheran Theological Method, and Defense of the Lutheran Scholastic Method

Abstract

This dissertation is a defence of the Lutheran scholastic method as used in Martin Chemnitz and Johann Gerhard, as well as a critique of the theological methodology of the Radical Lutheranism of Gerhard Forde, Steven Paulson, and Oswald Bayer. In particular, this work defends the use of classical essentialist metaphysical categories in theological discourse, and critiques the use of existential and linguistic categories which are proposed by some as an alternative system. The philosophical presuppositions within the Lutheran scholastic method are explained with reference to both the reformers as well as seventeenth century theologians, and are demonstrated to be those of classical philosophy, utilizing elements of both Plato and Aristotle’s thought. This scholastic approach is contrasted with Radical Lutheranism, which rejects both Platonic and Aristotelian essentialism. Instead, these authors use philosophical ideas taken from the linguistic philosophy of John Austin as well as existentialism and relation alontology. This leads to a theology which is opposed to traditional categories of essence and substance, as they favour categories of act, relation, and language. It is demonstrated in this work that though these modern writers add some valuable insights into Lutheran thought, these modern categories do not give an adequate basis for doing theology apart from a real-essentialist metaphysic. Apart from the notion of essence, the categories of relation, language, and existence fail to give an adequate explanation of the doctrine of God, of anthropology, and other areas of Christian thought. The claim is made in the dissertation that the metaphysical categories of Plato and Aristotle, as modified and adopted by Lutheran scholastics, are a necessary and beneficial part of the theological task. Contemporary theology is in need of this grounding, not to replace developments in Lutheran thought within the past century, but to teach them in a manner consistent with classical Christian orthodoxy. The goal of this work is to demonstrate the inadequacies of Radical Lutheranism and the superiority of scholastic categories. These ideas are applied throughout to various practical and theological issues that impact the contemporary church. There are three particular areas in which the implications of these ideas are discussed: Lutheran identity, apologetics, and understandings of gender. In each of these areas, it is demonstrated that the Radical Lutheran method does not give adequate answers to these questions. Instead, it is contended that the traditional scholastic method allows for a more consistent and biblical perspective on these particular topics. This leads to a proposal for a new scholasticism in the contemporary church.