¹ Christian Contradictions: The Structures of Lutheran and Catholic Thought(CUP 2001Google Scholar, paperback 2004).

² After Christianity(SCM Press 1996, second edn. 2002).

³ WA 7.38.6–9 (German); 69.12–15 (Latin). A useful collection of Luther's writings (in which this text is given) is ed. Dillenberger, J Martin Luther: Selections(Anchor Doubleday, 1961)Google Scholar.

⁴ Cf. Let God be God: An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther(London: Epworth press, 1947), pp. 34, 52 etcGoogle Scholar. Hence also the discussion in Scandinavian Lutheranism (in what may be an unfortunate choice of words) of Lutheran theocentrism as opposed to Catholic egocentrism.

⁵ When discussing Christian theology I employ non‐inclusive language both for God and the human being as this reflects the character of that theology.

⁶ WA 17,II.98.25.

⁷ For Luther's (retrospective) description of this breakthrough cf. WA 54.185.12–186.21.

⁸ The Lutheran dialectic may well be expressed in terms of ‘law’ and ‘gospel’. The law is an enemy to be overcome in the sense that it leads us to think that, sinners that we are, we cannot be acceptable to God. (Cf. for example WA 40,1.267.26–268.18.) In contrast the Tridentine Fathers anathematise those who deny that Christ is also a law‐giver.

⁹ Arthur McGill.

¹⁰ Cf. ‘Decree on Justification’ in ed. Leith, J. Creeds of the Churches(Atlanta: John Knox, 1973) pp. 418–20Google Scholar. See the final chapter, XVI, written into the decree in the course of the debate to rule out Seripando's wish for an expression of ‘double justice’.

¹¹ WA 18.636.21–22.

¹² Thus Luther in his great Galatians lectures given at the height of his career in the 1530s: ‘Religion that can be comprehended by reason is false religion.…In this respect there is no distinction between the Jews, the papists, and the Turks. Their rites are different, but their hearts and thoughts are the same…That is, they say, “If I have acted in such and such a way, God will be well disposed towards me”. The same feeling is found in the hearts of all men.’WA 40.1.603.5–11.

¹³ WA 56.442.17.

¹⁴ WA 4.350.15. Though Luther also admonishes us in what is sometimes called a ‘second righteousness’ to become what we are, children of God. Cf. the sermon ‘Two Kinds of Righteousness’, thought to date from 1518/19, given in Dillenberger op.cit.

¹⁵ Cf. ‘The Freedom of a Christian’. Compare the comment of George Lindbeck (in large part responsible for drafting the American joint statement on justification) that the problem is that Trent conceives of renewal in terms of inherent righteousness which, from the Lutheran perspective, is both an unnecessary and unusable way of expressing renewal. ‘A Question of Compatibility’ in ed. Anderson etal Justification by Faith(Augsburg, 1985).

¹⁶ On the significance of Luther's discarding of Aristotelian modes of thought see Joest, Wilfred, Ontologie der Person bei Luther, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Cf. ST I, qu. 20, art. 2, reply: ‘God loves all things that exist. For all things that exist are good, in so far as they are. The very existence of anything whatsoever is a good, and so is any perfection of it…There is nothing to prevent the same thing being loved in one respect and hated in another respect. God loves sinners in so far as they are natures, because they are, and have their being from himself. But in so far as they are sinners they fail to be, and are not. This deficiency is not from God, and they are hateful to God in respect of it.’

¹⁸ Ed. Bethge, E Letters and Papers from Prison(SCM Press, 1954)Google Scholar, 11.

¹⁹ Ps.cxl, Migne, PL37, col.1825.

²⁰ Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection(Burns & Oates, 2^nd edn. 1981). For my critique of Küng cf. CC 129–37.

²¹ At http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils, or available as ‘Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification’, ISBN 3.906706.54.0.

²² Sickness unto Death(ed. and trans. Hong and Hong) pp. 82: ‘And this is one of the most decisive definitions for all Christianity – that the opposite of sin is not virtue but faith.’

²³ See below pp. 41–42.

²⁴ Cf. Again Arthur McGill: Luther is radically against transfer to us.

²⁵ Thus (in American discussions prior to the JD) the Catholic Carl Peter complains that Lutheran thought has no place for creation, commenting (naively): ‘I wonder why Lutherans would find it necessary to derive the goodness of creation…from justification by faith alone.…Do not expect other Christians to play dead theologically while this is going on.…Let Lutherans use the ‘flip side’ of justification by faith [to reach creation]. Other Christians…’. (‘A Roman Catholic Response’ in ed. J. A. Burgess Christian Unity, Augsburg, 1991, 82.) To which the Lutheran Gerhard Forde responds that the whole problem is this ‘other’ starting point. (‘Justification by Faith Alone: The Article by Which the Church Stands or Falls?’ in ed. Burgess, J A In Search of Christian Unity: Basic Consensus/Basic Differences(Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1991, 64–76Google Scholar.)

²⁶ This however is probably more complex than I am able to indicate here; and more complex still if one takes Reformed Protestantism into account. (Thus for example Barth's interpretation of Calvin in his ‘Nein!’ may well be wrong.) Nevertheless this does not mean that Lutheranism is bi‐polar with a high doctrine of creation in quite the way that is Catholicism.

²⁷ ‘The Paradigms of Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther: Did Luther's Message of Justification Mean a Paradigm Change?’ in eds. Küng, H. and Tracy, D. (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology(T&T Clark, 1989)Google Scholar. Pfürtner comments that, having failed to understand this shift in paradigm, it becomes ‘quite understandable’ that Catholics ‘should have continually denied that Luther's doctrine could be described as scholarly theology, citing its lack of logical stringency, or the paradoxical structure of its language’.

²⁸ WATR 5.318.2–3.

²⁹ ‘On the Bondage of the Will’WA 18. An extract is given in Dillenberger op.cit.

³⁰ WA 30,I.133.1–134.

³¹ Thus Luther thinks it no better to rely on some ‘experience’ than on works. (Of the enthusiasts and the ‘papists’ he says they are ‘two foxes tied together by their tails’, WA 40,1.36.21–22). He looks to another's righteousness.

³² Luther and Staupitz: An Essay in the Intellectual Origins of the Protestant Reformation, Duke University Press 1980Google Scholar and Fortress Press, 1984, pp. 66, 140.

³³ Kant (coming from a Lutheran background) also presumes in his Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone that a revolution must first take place. But Kant is complex, having apparently been reading Jesuit sources, and also thinks that we must make effort.

³⁴ New Blackfriars, Oct. 1997.

³⁵ Cf. History and Eschatology(Edinburgh University Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Incidentally it should also now be clear what I mean when I say that I fail to see how revelation is ‘essential’ to Catholicism (on which Hemming picks me up). For I think that, were there to be such a revelation, that would overturn everything that we thought we knew as being correct and all else would have to be seen in relation to that revelation. With this I should have moral problems (as I do for example with Bonhoeffer's Christology lectures which clearly spell out the epistemological consequences of the Lutheran position).

³⁷ Cf. Richard Bauckham in a review of CC: ‘One has the impression it is Lutheran theology that Hampson admires, even though it is the Catholic sense of the self that is more acceptable to her.’(In Principio, Autumn 2003).

³⁸ Cf. also the reviewer in Theology(March – April 200): ‘I have no sympathy with Dr Hampson's own theology, but this book is a delight to read and leaves me feeling strangely in her debt.’

³⁹ Towards Deep Subjectivity(Harper Torchbooks, 1972), p. 145Google Scholar. By italics.

⁴⁰ I am moreover unclear that I am into ‘a structure of the human person as a liberatory event established as an intellectual break from anterior shackles based on a practice of reason, thus a break from patriarchy’. It sounds over‐violent. In hope I take human liberty and equality for granted; until I come up against a situation (as in the church) in which this does not pertain. Nor do I know how it could be that the ‘shackles’ have been based on reason?!

⁴¹ Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. Swenson, (Princeton University Press, 1941), pp. 218–9Google Scholar.

⁴² New Blackfriars, Vol. 58, no. 687 (Aug. 1977), p. 353.

⁴³ Incidentally I should have thought Hemming's Christology highly questionable. One surely cannot make anything Christologically of Christ's maleness. Given the principle of ‘not taken on, not redeemed’ women would in this case be deemed outside the scheme of salvation. One should understand Christology as having been formulated within the philosophical context of the neo‐Platonism of the ancient world; such that what was being said was that in Christ God took on the ‘real universal’‘humanity’– in which we all, Jew and Greek, male and female, participate. Of course in order to take on what it is to be a human one has to be of a certain race and sex; a real universal is not an ‘umbrella’ concept. It is the loss of this philosophical context which has led people to deify what the ancient world would have called a particular example of humanity (in this case a male Jew). I discuss this in my Theology and Feminism, Blackwell, 1990, pp. 53–58. Further, to say that ‘Mary is the answer to why a male Christ may redeem woman’(H 23) must be Christologically aberrant. As far as I know, Christians are held to be redeemed in Christ. To think in terms of two humans, Christ and Mary, who have in effect been deified, may well be a descent into paganism may it not?

⁴⁴ Thus when Nygren writes ‘agape’ he is read as meaning Catholic ‘grace’, while ‘eros’ is taken to be Catholic ‘creation’; whereupon it is stated that in casting eros as sin Nygren wants to abolish human nature. And so forth.