Page 435 - Stati inu obstati, revija za vprašanja protestantizma, letnik X (2014), številka 19-20, ISSN 1408-8363
P. 435
SYNOPSES, ZUSAMMENFASSUNGEN
tional tragedy, but it was wrongly understood – especially among the majority
of Christians – namely, as a demand to rectify the wrongs done and for a kind
of settlement that would give satisfaction for the crimes committed. But recon-
ciliation is a moral action and demands unconditional forgiveness, and not the
putting right of wrongs and satisfaction by punishing enemies. Moreover: the
New Testament concept of reconciliation is marked by a definitely interperson-
al ethical relationship. The emphasis is on my responsibility: not only that I
forgive the wrong done to me, and remain self-contained, but that I must be
reconciled with my neighbour, whom I have affected or who has affected me.
This means that I must begin to live with him in co-existence.
Even Judaism in the time of its religious flowering made an about-turn from
physical sacrifice to a personal ethical transformation of the person as the con-
dition of renewing the covenant with God. The prophet Isaiah demanded moral
transformation as a condition for reconciliation with God. Jesus makes a link
with the rabbinic tradition when he instructs: “If then you bring your gift to the
altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave
your gift there before the altar and go and be first reconciled with your brother,
and then come and offer your gift.” And Paul continues Jesus’ teaching when he
stresses that a Christian has the duty of reconciliatory action towards his neigh-
bour, towards his fellow man, because his action of forgiving and accepting an-
other opens up for him the way to reconciliation with God and makes it possible
for God’s righteousness to shine among people. If Paul emphasizes that only
God’s Son gave satisfaction to cover people’s sins, then he stresses that God
forgives a person unconditionally through Christ and that the believer must take
up the same attitude towards his fellow-man. In this light the endeavours of
Slovene political Catholicism are seen as an attempt to validate the Old Testa-
ment talion law/lex talionis, which is the opposite of evangelical teaching and
the command of Paul’s theology that our faith is shown through our interper-
sonal reconciliation and God’s righteousness comes into the world.
UDC 172.3:271/279:929Luther M.
Walter Sparn
Luther’s intolerance and the evangelical command regarding tolerance
Luther was far from the religious tolerance such as nowadays makes it pos-
sible in our society for believers of different religions to live together. Actually he
demanded tolerance for his own conscience, but he ensured tolerance for others
only within the boundaries of what he and his followers counted as evangelical.
Luther’s intolerance had deeper causes than the aggressive anti-Islamism and
anti-Judaism of his late years. He saw the Turkish threat as part of the apocalyp-
433
tional tragedy, but it was wrongly understood – especially among the majority
of Christians – namely, as a demand to rectify the wrongs done and for a kind
of settlement that would give satisfaction for the crimes committed. But recon-
ciliation is a moral action and demands unconditional forgiveness, and not the
putting right of wrongs and satisfaction by punishing enemies. Moreover: the
New Testament concept of reconciliation is marked by a definitely interperson-
al ethical relationship. The emphasis is on my responsibility: not only that I
forgive the wrong done to me, and remain self-contained, but that I must be
reconciled with my neighbour, whom I have affected or who has affected me.
This means that I must begin to live with him in co-existence.
Even Judaism in the time of its religious flowering made an about-turn from
physical sacrifice to a personal ethical transformation of the person as the con-
dition of renewing the covenant with God. The prophet Isaiah demanded moral
transformation as a condition for reconciliation with God. Jesus makes a link
with the rabbinic tradition when he instructs: “If then you bring your gift to the
altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave
your gift there before the altar and go and be first reconciled with your brother,
and then come and offer your gift.” And Paul continues Jesus’ teaching when he
stresses that a Christian has the duty of reconciliatory action towards his neigh-
bour, towards his fellow man, because his action of forgiving and accepting an-
other opens up for him the way to reconciliation with God and makes it possible
for God’s righteousness to shine among people. If Paul emphasizes that only
God’s Son gave satisfaction to cover people’s sins, then he stresses that God
forgives a person unconditionally through Christ and that the believer must take
up the same attitude towards his fellow-man. In this light the endeavours of
Slovene political Catholicism are seen as an attempt to validate the Old Testa-
ment talion law/lex talionis, which is the opposite of evangelical teaching and
the command of Paul’s theology that our faith is shown through our interper-
sonal reconciliation and God’s righteousness comes into the world.
UDC 172.3:271/279:929Luther M.
Walter Sparn
Luther’s intolerance and the evangelical command regarding tolerance
Luther was far from the religious tolerance such as nowadays makes it pos-
sible in our society for believers of different religions to live together. Actually he
demanded tolerance for his own conscience, but he ensured tolerance for others
only within the boundaries of what he and his followers counted as evangelical.
Luther’s intolerance had deeper causes than the aggressive anti-Islamism and
anti-Judaism of his late years. He saw the Turkish threat as part of the apocalyp-
433
