The Great Divide
Via On Being a Theologian of the Cross, pp. 69-71
Giovan Battista Tiepolo, "Christ Carrying the Cross" (1738)
In theses 19 to 24 we come to the keystone of the great arch spanning the cleft between the law of God (thesis 1) and the love of God (thesis 28). Theses 19-24 are the most commented on of all the theses of the Heidelberg Disputation and are usually the centerpiece of any discussion on the theology of the cross. This is one of the few times Luther explicitly uses the actual words designating the theology of the cross as a particular way of doing theology in contrast to the theology of glory. So theses 19-24 get a lot of attention in treatises on the theology of the cross. Unfortunately what usually happens then is that these theses are taken out of their context in the Disputation and treated as though they were to stand by themselves as a more or less discrete theological program or treatise on the knowledge of God according to the theology of the cross and such matters.
Such procedure runs the risk of missing important connections. In the first place, the great divide between the theologian of glory and the theologian of the cross is a direct consequence of the argument to this point. The question of the knowledge of God is directly related to the claim that we can, by our own natural powers, prepare for grace by “doing what is in us.” “Doing what is in ourselves” by natural ability or trying to hold to the efficacy of such doing before God presumes a natural knowledge of God’s justifying action. It presupposes a certain way of knowing and seeing God. A fault in the estimation of works (part 1) is based on a false estimate of the power of will (part 2), which in turn presumes a knowledge of God’s judgment on such works (part 3). They are just links in the same chain. Thus the entire discussion to this point leads to an unavoidable theological divide. Theses 19-24 set forth this divide, which is usually missed when we take the theses out of context.
Second, treating theses 19-24 by themselves tends also to miss the fact that when we arrive at this point in the Disputation, the theologian has come to a real existential crisis. At stake is not merely a theology, whether it be of the cross or something else. At stake is the very survival and viability of the theologian. Theses 17 and 18 concluded the discussion to this point by raising the issue of despair. Thesis 18 insisted that “it is certain” we must “utterly despair of our own ability” if we are to be properly prepared for grace. The question now is how we as theologians are going to move. If “doing what is in us” presupposes a certain natural knowledge of God, where does “utterly despairing of our own ability” lead? What moves will we who so despair make? Will we as theologians betray what has been said so far? Will we even be worthy of the name? That is the question now. So it is vital to note that in these theses Luther does not talk much about theology. Rather, he talks about theologians and how they respond to the crisis. He points out how they operate, how what they hold about works and willing determines how and where they expect to find and know God.
