Luther and Feuerbach

Author(s): Carter Lindberg

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, Vol. 1 (Jan., 1970), pp. 107-125
Published by: The Sixteenth Century Journal
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3003687 .
Accessed: 04/03/2013 15:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Sixteenth Century Journal is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sixteenth
Century Essays and Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Luther and Feuerbach

Carter Lindberg
College of the Holy Cross
Worcester, Massachusetts

The perennial antipathy toward Ludwig Feuerbach has relegated

him to limbo, if not worse. The outcry of Nuernbergers in 1955 because
that city would commemorate Feuerbach with a statue1 is a reflection
of the views of generations of theologians and historians of Christian
thought. Richard Kroner, for example, sees Feuerbach's thought as
"monstrous"; the "disastrous" effect of which began Germany's "spiritual
decay."2 Feuerbach has been denounced as the "grave-digger of the-
ology"; the bourgeois atheist behind Marx and Nietzsche; the psycholo-
gizer of religion behind Freud; an early "death-of-God" theologian who
twisted Luther's thought to serve his own apotheosis of man; a banal
and superficial "non-knower of death" and "misknower of evil." What
has Luther to do with this man whom Karl Barth ironically called a
publican and sinner?

In spite of this antipathy toward Feuerbach, it is time to re-examine

the relationship between Feuerbach and Luther. The temper of today
(in 1969) seems more in tune with Feuerbach than at any other time.
BonhoefFer's claim that the world is coming of age, and the increasing
rejection of the "God-hypothesis" in all areas of life parallel Feuerbach's
claim

. . . that Christianityhas in fact long ago vanished, not only from the
reason but from the life of mankind, that it is nothing more than a fixed
idea, in flagrantcontradictionwith our fire and life assurance companies,
our railroads and steam-carriages,our picture and sculpture galleries, our
military and industrial schools, our theatres and scientificmuseums.3
Manfred Vogel in the "Introduction" to his translation of Feuerbach's
Principles of the Philosophy of the Future claims that Feuerbach's cri-
tique of religion is commanding new attention. He goes on to say that
its pervasive impact

lSee "Blasphemiein Stein," Der Spiegel, IX (1955), No. 30; and "Protestgegen das
Ludwig FeuerbachDenkmalin Nuernberg," DeutschesPfarrerblatt,1955.
2RichardKroner,BettvcenFaith and Thought(New York: OxfordUniversity Press,1966),
pp. 59-61.
essay by Karl
tr. GeorgeEliot, introductory
3L. Feuerbach,The Essence of Christianity,
Barth(HarperTorchbooks; New York,1957), p. xliv. Hereafter
citedas Essence.
107

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 . . . is understandable in terms of the position from which the critique is
launched, the premises on which it is built, and the interestsit comes to
defend. The more these are in accord with the spirit of the age, the more
telling and forceful will be the impact of the critique. And Feuerbach's
critique is based on a position that is closely akin to the spirit of our age.
In the two arguments constitutingthis critique, Feuerbach gives expression
to some of the most pervasive features of the contemporaryworld, . . .4

These premises are Feuerbach's cry for social and economic justice,
and his anthropological and materialistic assumptions.5

Renewed interest in Feuerbach is indicated by recent articles, trans?

lations of his works, and the re-issue of his collected works and earlier
studies about him.6 Four major works by Feuerbach are now easily
available in English: The Essence of Christianity; Principles of the
Philosophy of the Future; The Essence of Faith According to Luther;7
and Lectures on the Essence of Religion.8

However, in this budding Feuerbach renaissance there is very little

mention of Luther. In fact, Karl Marx is one of the few men to put
the two together.9 The lack of studies on Luther and Feuerbach would
not be amazing were it not for the fact that Feuerbach extensively
quoted and referred to Luther throughout his works. In the eventful
year for him of 1844, the writings of Luther occupied most of his at?
tention resulting in his study The Essence of Faith According to Luther.10
Feuerbach understood Luther as der erste Mensch of Christendom, and
the originator of the modern age.11 He made no secret of his admiration

4L. Feuerbach,Principles of the Philosophyof the Future,tr.ManfredVogel (The Libraryof

LiberalArts;New York,1966), pp. xxvii-xxviii. Hereaftercited as Principles.
5Loewith asserts that "Feuerbach's materialization and impoverization
(Versinnlichung)
(Verendlichung) of Hegel's philosophicaltheologyhas plainlybecome "the standpointof our
time,upon whichwe all consciously or unconsciously? stand." "Einleitung,"Ludwig Feuer?
bach: Sdmtliche Werke,ed. by Bolinand Jodl(Stuttgart-Bad 1960), I, XXV. Sidney
Cannstatt,
Hook arguesthatFeuerbach"stillawaitshis properrecognition," The QuestforBeing(New York:
St. Martins,1961),p. 137.
6Articles,e.g., among others:H. W. Frei, "Feuerbachand Theology,"Journalof the
AmericanAcademyof Religion,XXXV (1967), 250-56; J. Glasse, "Barth on Feuerbach,"
HarvardTheologicalReview,LVII/2 (1964), 69-96; E. Schmidt,"Ludwig FeuerbachsLehre
von der Religion,"Neue Zeitschrift fuersystematischeTheologieund Religionsphilosophie,VIII/l
(1966), 1-35; P. Cornehl,"Feuerbachund die Naturphilosophie; Zur Genese,"ibid., 1/1 (1969),
37-93; H. F. Reisz, Jr.,"Feuerbachon the Essence of Religion,"The Journalof Religion,
XLIX/2 (1969), 180-182. One of thethreestandardstudiesof Feuerbachis thatby Rawidowicz,
Ludwig FeuerbachsPhilosophie:Ursprung und Schicksal(Berlin,1931) whichwas reissuedin
1964.
7Translated and withan Introduction by MelvinCherno(New York:Harper& Row, 1967).
Hereafter citedas Luther.
8Translatedby Ralph Manheim(New York: Harper & Row, 1967). Hereaftercited as
Lectures.
9See "Luther als Schiedsrichter zwischenStraussand Feuerbach,"Marx, Engles Werke
(Berlin,1964), I, 26-27.
lOThis year was markedby the death of his daughter,controversy over his writings,and
acquaintancewith radical social theorists.See Cherno,"Introduction," Luther,p. 8.
URawidowicz,pp. 161, 217f.
108

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
for Luther and among his close friends used to say jokingly, "I'm Luther
II."12 He understood Luther's thought and personal reality . . . as
both the fulcrum between the times and the historical lever that moves
man toward insight."13

Yet a survey of bibliographies of Luther studies reveals no studies on

Luther and Feuerbach.14 A bibliography of "Luther and ..." essays
alone would fill many pages. Why then is there this silence on a rela-
tionship that seems to be a rich mine for at least an article or two?
Perhaps the Barthian overkill has something to do with this silence.
Karl Barth rarely missed an opportunity to cudgel the opposite side
of his transcendental coin ? Feuerbach and the apotheosis of man.
Although Barth is known for his strong critique of Feuerbach, his as-
sessment was positive as well as negative.15

On the one hand Barth claimed that Feuerbach's theological skill,

especially as used in interpreting Luther, placed him above most modern
philosophers. "No philosopher of his time penetrated the contemporary
theological situation as effectively as he, and few spoke with such per-
tinence." Furthermore, Feuerbach was not a "mere skeptic and nay-
sayer;" he affirmed the whole man, an "I and thou" ethic, and social
concern. Thus Barth said that Feuerbach "works, as it were, with a
Christian realism."

On the other hand, Barth continuously attacked Feuerbach's re-

duction of theology to anthropology: the "inversion of above and below,
of heaven and earth, of God and man ? the possibility of forgetting the
eschatological limit." This inversion is the disastrous actualization of
Luther's potential and must be opposed by the Reformed "Finitum non
capax infiniti." Feuerbach's claim that man is the measure of all things,
"the epitome, the original and end of all values" revealed him as a "true
child of his century," a "non-knower of death" and a "misknower of

12Ibid., p. 161-62. See also Windelband'snecrology(obituary)on Feuerbach where

he is compared to Luther;ibid.,p. 162, note2.
13Reisz,p. 183.
14E.g.,K. Schottenloher, Bibliographie zur deutschenGeschichte im Zeitalterder Glaubens-
spaltung(7 vols.; Stuttgart, 1966), mentionsonly Feuerbach'sown Lutherstudy;Bibliographie
de la Reforme 1450-1684 (Leiden,1960-1967),does notmentionFeuerbachand Lutherstudies;
and the bibliographiesof the Luther-Jahrbuch producedno leads.
similarly
15JosephWeber remarksthat "The " ChurchDogmaticsmightverywell bear the subtitle,
'Nein, Against Ludwig Feuerbach.' "Feuerbach, Barth, and Theological Methodology,"
Journalof Religion,XLVI (1966), 29. In particularsee Barth's essays on Feuerbachin
Die Theologieund die Kirche(1928) and Die Protestantische Theologieim 19. Jahrhundert
(1952). The formeris available in Englishin Theologyand the Church(New York);Harper,
1962) and as the "Introductory Essay" to Essence. The latteris availablein Protestant
Thought
(New York:Harper,1959).
109

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
evil." "In fact, anyone who knew that we men are evil from head to
foot and anyone who reflected that we must die, would recognize it to
be the most illusory of all illusions to suppose that the essence of God
is the essence of man."16

Reisz "suspects that, in fact, the 'Feuerbachian' roots of modern

thought have been cut short, sheared with 'Barthian'
quips, or have
been found too strong to contest."17 A cursory view of scholars in-
terested in Luther studies seems to bear this out. Karl Holl, in only one
footnote, notes a relationship between Feuerbach and Luther. He equates
Feuerbach's analysis of religion with what Luther called "heathen re-
ligion," and then said that no one who really is religious will recognize
his religion in the psychological picture that Feuerbach presents.18 In
the studies of Stephan, Kattenbusch, Hirsch, and Loewenich there are
only passing references to Feuerbach.19 Elert spent four pages casti-
gating Feuerbach but made no mention of Luther in relation to him.20
Gerhard Ebeling warns about the dangers of Luther's explanation of
the First Commandment in the Large Cathechism since the time of
Feuerbach.21 The Barthian influence is evident in Ebeling's exposition
of the dangers of psychologism and historicism. Althaus concurs with
Holl that Feuerbach's understanding of religion is what Luther under-
stood as the constant distortion of religion. But Althaus' primary con-
cern is to refute Barth's suspicion of Luther: "The truth of the matter is
however errs in quoting Luther to prove his position;
that Feuerbach
and Barth's concern is unfounded. No line of development connects
Luther with Feuerbach. For when Luther says that 'faith creates the
"22 Althaus'
deity,' he immediately adds 'not in (God's) person but in us.'
claim that no line of development connects Luther and Feuerbach is

16Thissummary of Barth'sviews is fromthe "Introductory Essay" of Essence whichis a

translationof his 1928 essay on Feuerbachavailablein Theologyand Church.
17Journal XLIX/2 (1969),
of Religion, 180.
18Gesammelte Aufsaetzezur Kirchengeschichte: Luther(1948), I, 57, note 3.
19 HorstStephan,Lutherin den Wundlungen seine Kirche(1951); Geschichteder evangel-
ischen Theologieseit dem deutschenIdealismus(1938); FerdinandKattenbusch, Die deutsche
evangelische Theologieseit Schleiermacher(1934); EmanuelHirsch,Die Idealistische Philosophie
und das Christentum (1926); W. von Loewenich,Lutherund der Neuprotestantismus (1963).
20DerKampfumdas Christentum (1921).
2lSee "LuthersReden von Gott,"Luther:Einfuehrung in sein Denken (1964), especially
pp. 289ff.
22PaulAlthaus,The Theologyof MartinLuther(1966; German,1963), pp. 147f. If Althaus
had read Feuerbachmore carefully, however,he would have noticedthatFeuerbachdid not
quote Lutherto provehis own position,and thathe was quite aware of Luther'stranscendental
perspective.See Essence,p. 127, and Luther,p. 88.
110

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
not convincing however, for as Heinrich Bornkamm has pointed out,
Feuerbach's position is a reaction against the contemporary classical,
idealistic-national Lutherbild and a focusing upon Luther's existential
perspective that divine truth can only be grasped in the personal
act of faith; that the pro me/pro nobis aspect of the incarnation takes
precedence over objective structures of doctrine.23
Bornkamm's analysis prepares the way for a more sympathetic as-
sessment of the relationship between Luther and Feuerbach. The writer
will first outline their formal similarity or kinship, and then inquire
whether there is a material relationship between Feuerbach and Luther.
The formal similarity between Luther and Feuerbach may be seen
in the parallel of their development. The young Luther's seriousness
in regard to the Church and theology is well-known. His commitment
to the structures and paths of salvation provided by the church is mani-
fest in his entrance to the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt and his aca-
demic career at Wittenberg. Soon however Luther found Aristotle and the
scholastics distasteful. By 1516 he wrote the "Disputation Against
Scholastic Theology" and followed this up in 1517 with the "Ninety-five
Theses." Luther's understanding of justification was undergoing a radi?
cal change. In his well-known "Preface to the Latin Writings," written
at the end of his life, Luther reflects on his revolution in his understand?
ing of the righteousness of God:
I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the
righteouslives by a giftof God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning:
the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive
righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith . . . Here
I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself
through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture
showed itself to me, thereupon I ran through the Scripture from memory.
I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what
God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong,the wis-
dom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strengthof God, the sal?
vation of God, the glory of God.24
The result of this Turmerlebnis was liberation from his picture of
a vengeful, demanding God to a merciful, giving God. Now Luther
turned against the scholastic theology of his day.
His anger against the Nominalist teaching and the Aristotelian domi-
nation of the schools was that they were leading souls astray, fobbing men
off with a false sense of security, which failed them . . . 25

2SLuthers (1959), pp. 65, 55, 103.

Bild in der deutschenGeistesgeschichte
24Luther'sWorks (Philadelphia/St. Louis, 1957ff.)XXXIV, 337. This Americanedition
willbe citedhereafteras L.W.
25GordonRupp,Luther'sProgress to the Diet of Worms(New York:Harper,1964), p. 47.
111

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This was expressed by 1518 in the Heidelberg Disputation which rejected
the "theology of glory" which claims to know the hidden, secret things
of God.

That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks

upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible
in those things which have actually happened. He deserves to be called a
theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of
God seen through sufferingand the cross. A theology of glory calls evil
good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually
is. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as per-
ceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.26

Speculation on the attributes of God in Himself must end; proclamation

of God's presence in suffering and the cross must begin. The younger
men at Heidelberg were overwhelmed!

The ramification of this new theology led Luther from the cloister
to the world. This breaks forth in the 1520 treatises. The pro me/pro
nobis of faith is not turned in upon itself: faith is to be active in love.
The Christian is to be a Christ to his neighbor. Everything that is his is to
be at the service of others.

Turning to Feuerbach, it is to be noted that his initial commitment

to Hegel and Hegelianism may be paralleled to Luther's early commit?
ment to the Church and its theology. Feuerbach was a thorough going
disciple of Hegel, and one of his early writings was an attack on von
Baehmann's Antihegel which could have been written by Hegel him?
self.27 But in 1839 Feuerbach moved from being a thoroughgoing dis?
ciple of Hegel to an attacker of Hegel. Feuerbach's attack on Hegel
has similarities to Luther's attack on the scholastic theology of glory.
That is, Feuerbach did not attack religion per se, but rather abstract,
rational theology.

The Principles seems to have been intended as a work critical of ab?

stract,rational theology. As long as Feuerbach is considering only abstract,
rational theology, his position is consistentlynegative and critical. In the
last seven sections, he moves to complete his anthropological viewpoint,
and here it is no longer abstract, rational theology that is involved, but the
wider aspect of religion. It will not do to equate Feuerbach's position to?
ward religion in general with his position toward abstract, rational the?
ology.28

2GL.W.,XXXI,40-41. Theses19-22.
27KarlLoewith,FromHegcl to Nietzsche(AnchorBooks; New York,1967), p. 70.
28Vogel,p. Ixxix.
112

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Feuerbach himself put this pointedly in the Essence of Christianity
when he said:

But this distinctionbetween what God is in himself and what he is

for me destroysthe peace of religion, and is besides in itself an unfounded
and untenable distinction. I cannot know whether God is somethingelse in
himself or for himself than he is for me; what he is to me is to me all that
he is.29

The attack on the abstract theology of his day (this is what Feuer?
bach called the Hegelian philosophy) was a liberation not only for Feuer?
bach but also for other "reformers" of his day. Thus Engels said of
Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity:

One must himselfhave experienced the liberating effectof this book to

get an idea of it. Enthusiasm was general; we all become at once Feuer-
bachians. How enthusiasticallyMarx greeted the new conception and how
much ? in spite of all critical reservations? he was influenced by it, one
may read in The Holy Family,.^
Thus as Luther'sdevelopment led from the cloister to the world,
Feuerbach's development led from the philosopher's study to the world.
At the conclusion of his Lectures on the Essence of Religion, Feuerbach
stated:

My only wish is that I have not failed in the task I set myself and
formulatedin the opening lectures: to transformfriendsof God into friends
of man, believers into thinkers,devotees of prayer into devotees of work,
candidates for the hereafterinto students of this world, Christians who, by
their own professionand admission, are "half animal, half angel," into men,
into whole mcnM

One might argue that while a formal similarity such as has

been set forth may be of some interest, it nevertheless points to nothing
more than a kind of ideological generation gap. However, there is
more to the relationship between Luther and Feuerbach than similar
life styles. When Feuerbach compared himself to Luther he had more
in mind than the formal similarity of an attack on abstract rationalism.
He was vitally interested in what Luther had to say about religion. "I
take my citation chiefly from men in whom Christianity was not merely
a theory or a dogma, not merely theology, but religion."32

2dEssence,p. 16.
30F. Engels,"Ludwig Feuerbachand the End of ClassicalGermanPhilosophy,"
Marxand
Engelson Religion(NewYork:Schocken,1964), p. 224.
p. 285. See also p. 23.
SlLectures,
S2Essence,p. xlii. It would be helpfulto be able to documentthe time,place and
extentwhereFeuerbachfirstbecomesacquaintedwithLuther.
113

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Jt was through his study on faith in Luther that Feuerbach gained
his full insight. He remarked in the foreword to the first volume of his
complete works in 1846:
You (the philosopher is speaking to himself) recognized that the being
of a differentnature, is set offfromsensual beings, is itself nothingbut the
abstract or idealized essence of sensuality. This insight you gained firstin
the field of religion. . . . But what you recognized as the essential char-
acteristic of religion was not at firstthe most essential thing for you, for
your consciousness, or for your understanding, at least theoretically. You
were still haunted by the abstract Rational Being, the being of philosophy,
as distinct from the actual, sensual being of nature and humanity. Your
Essence of Chrisiianitywas, at least partially,writtenwhen you still looked
at things in this contradictorymanner. Only in your Luther ? which thus
is by no means a mere "supplement," as the title says, but had independent
significance? was this contradiction fully overcome. Only there did you
fully "shake off" the philosopher and cause the philosopher to give way to
the man.33

This is not, of course, to argue that Feuerbach was a repristinator

of Luther.34 His attitude to Luther was one of ambivalence. Cherno
maintains that Feuerbach admired Luther for his concern for the welfare
of man, but attacked Luther for routing this concern through God rather
than directly to man.35 Feuerbach wrote:

Is the work The Essence of Faith According to Luther for or against

Luther? It is just as much for as against Luther. But is this not a contra?
diction rooted in the nature of the object itself?30

There is a sense, however, in which it may be argued that Feuerbach,

perhaps more than any other philosopher or theologian of his day, was
a disciple of Luther. As John Dillenberger has pointed out there are
times when too slavish an adherence to the past produces its theological
opposite, and continuity with the past sometimes demands saying the
opposite of what has been said.37

This kinship or even discipleship to Luther is most easily discerned

in Feuerbach's treatment of God and faith. Feuerbach like Luther
created an "organic" theology. One aspect cannot be isolated without
?
violating the whole. However, to present the theology of Feurbach

33Quotedby Cherno,pp. 14f.

340ne mightargue the opposite:that Feuerbachwas one of the few Germantheologians
afterLutherwho was able to use Luther'sinsightscreatively withoutslavishness.
p. 13. See also Reisz,p. 182.
35Cherno,
p. 13. See also Rawidowicz,
SVLuther, pp. 100, 116, and 160 ff.
37Contoursof Faith: ChangingFormsof ChristianThought(Nashville:Abingdon,1969),
p.8.
114

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
much less that of Luther ? is not within the compass of this brief paper.
The attempt here is to point to suggestive areas of relationship in the
hope of stimulating further research and reflection.
Feuerbach understood his task to be that of showing

. . . that the antithesisof divine and human is altogether illusory,that it is

nothing else than the antithesisbetween the human nature in general and
the human individual; that, consequently the object and the contents of
the Christian religion are altogether human. The divine being is nothing
else than the human being, or, rather, the human nature purified, freed
from the limits of the individual man, made objective ? i.e., contemplated
and revered as another, a distinct being. All the attributes of the divine
nature are, therefore,attributesof the human nature.38

Again:
The personality of God is nothing else than the projected personality of
man.39

It is well-known ? even ? that Feuerbach used

though ignored
Luther's statements about faith to explicate and substantiate his own
theology. One need only scan his Essence on Christianity and his
Luther to notice the centrality of Luther's famous dictum: "As you
believe him, so he is." For example, Feuerbach took the quotation from
Luther:

As thou behavest thyself,so does God behave. If thou thinkestthat he

is angry with thee, he is angry; if thou thinkestthat he is unmercifuland
will east thee into hell, he is so. As thou believest of God, so he is to thee.

Then he commented:

. . . Thus, if I believe in a God, I have a God, i.e., faith in God is the God
of man. If God is such, whatever it may be, as I believe him, what else
is the nature of God than the nature of faith? Is it possible for thee to
believe in a God who regards thee favorably, if thou dost not regard thy?
self favorable, if thou despairest of man, if he is nothing to thee? What
else then is the being of God but the being of man, the absolute self-love of
man? If thou believest that God is for thee, thou believest that nothing is or
can be against thee, that nothing contradictsthee. But if thou believest that
nothing is or can be against thee, thou believest ? what ? nothing less
than that tiiou art God. That God is another being is only illusion, only
imagination.40

S8Essence,pp. 13-14.
SQEssence, pp. 226, 108.
4i0Essence,p. 127. Feuerbachhad a footnote here: " 'God is Almighty; but he who believes
is a God.' Luther(in Chr. Kapps Christus u. die Weltgeschichte. s. 11). In anotherplace Luther
calls faiththe 'Creatorof the Godhead;'it is truethathe immediately adds, as he mustneces-
sarilydo on his standpoint, the followinglimitation:'Not thatit createsanything in the Divine
EternalBeing, but that it createsthat Being in us' (Th. xi. p. 161)." In his Luther,p. 88,
Feuerbachcommented that Luther'sproblemis thathe retainsthe God behindJesusand thus
contradictsHimself.See abovenote22.
115

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 At this point Feuerbach's inversion of theology to anthropology
must be noted. Feuerbach wanted to clear himself of a perennial charge
of atheism. The negative elements of his work were to emphasize and
free the positive. "Certainly my work is negative, destructive; but be it
observed, only in relation to the tmhuman, not the human elements of
religion."41
In the case of Feuerbach, insistsJoel, "The rejection of God is basically
nothing more than a rejection of Hegel. He protestsonly against God as a
projection of the thinkingprocess, against the abstract, objective, alien God
out there and up there; but against the subjectively experienced God,
against the God felt within man, he has no objection." . . . The ac-
cusation of atheism, renewed century after century, is the result of re?
ligious fanaticism and intolerance. The theists have not understood the
problem of God: What is branded as atheism is nothing other than "nega?
tive theology" which is called to purge "positive" or affirmativetheology,
because accordnig to the teaching of Nicholas of Cusa, the true mystical
42
theologycan rise above everyyes and every no . . .
Feuerbach never tired of asserting that the negation of the subject is
in no wise negation of the predicates.43

Not the attributeof the divinity,but the divineness or deity of the at-
tribute,is the firsttrue Divine Being . . . Hence he alone is the true atheist
to whom the predicates of the Divine Being, ? for example, love, wisdom,
justice, ? are nothing;not he to whom merelythe subject of these predicates
is nothing.44

The real atheist, said Feuerbach, is the man who theoretically acknowl-
edges God and then lives as if he did not exist.
On the ground that God is unknowable, man excuses himself to what
is yet remaining of his religious conscience for his forgetfulnessof God,
his absorption in the world: he denies God practically by his conduct,?
the world has possession of all his thoughts and inclination,? but he does
not deny him theoretically,he does not attack his existence: he lets that
rest. But this existence does not affect or incommode him; . . . The denial
of determinate,positive predicates concerning the divine nature is nothing
else than a denial of religion, with, however, an appearance of religion in

4:lEssence,p. xxxvi. "My primaryconcernis and alwayshas been to illuminethe obscure

essenceof religionwiththe torchof reason,in orderthatman may at least cease to be the
victim,the play thing,of all thosehostilepowerswhichfromtimeimmemorial have employed
and stillare employingthe darknessof religionforthe oppressionof mankind."Lectures,p. 22.
42CornelioFabro, God in Exile, ModernAtheism,tr. and ed. ArthurGibson(Baltimore:
NewmanPress,1968), p. 77. Fabro comments on this quotationfromK. Joel'sVortraegeund
Aufsaetze(Jena,1914): "It can be said to have been the meritof present-day philosophy to
have made a clean sweep of these oversimplications which do violenceto philosophyand
religionat once."
4SEssence,p. 21.
44Ibid.
116

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 its favour, so that it is not recognized as a denial; it is simply a subtle,
disguised atheism.45
Feuerbach's driving concern was the humanization of God rather than
the divinization or apotheosis of man. Whereas Hegel's concern was
that of raising man to God, Feuerbach's concern was that of bringing
God down to man.46 It is this context which accounts for Feuerbach's
attack on abstract, rational theology on the one hand, and his emphasis
on Luther's Christology, on the other hand.

When the mystic philosopher or theologian or the rationalist theolo?

gian speaks of God as He is in Himself he is indulging in "an uncon-
"47 This
scious, esoteric, pathology, anthropology, and psychology . . .
process has been removing God farther and farther away from man and
nature. Hegel's work, in Feuerbach's view, was a prime example of a
speculative effort to vindicate traditional Christian theology and as such
was a furthering of man's estrangement from himself and nature.48 Thus
in the Essence of Christianity Feuerbach quoted Schelling approvingly:
So long as the God of modern theism remains the simple, supposed
purely essential, but in fact non-essential Being that all modern systems
make him, so long as a real duality is not recognized in God, and a limit-
ing, negativing force, opposed to the expansive affirmingforce, so long
will the denial of a personal God be scientific honesty.49

The other side of Feuerbach's attack on speculation about God as

He is in Himself is his emphasis on the pro me/pro nobis aspect of
faith.

45Ibid., p. 15. Also, Lectures,p. 166. Loewithsees both Feuerbachand Kierkegaard

as opponentsof a Christianity whichhad becomea fixedidea and thus had lost all relevance
to contemporary life. SaemtlicheWerke,p. xxix. On thispointsee also Vogel,pp. lxf.
46See Vogel, pp. xlivf. "Feuerbach'shumanization of theologybelongsto the historyof
Protestantism because he derived the principlesof his criticismof religionfromLuther.
. . . FeuerbachproceedsfromLuther'sinternalor existentialunderstanding of faithto an
anchoringof the Lutheran'correlation' between'what is God's' and 'what is man's' to the
particular end which is man, and to the thesis that God 'presupposes' man, because the
theologicalessence of religionis also its anthropological essence. In principle,Feuerbach's
is in
interpretationalreadyimplicit Hegel, who also sees the liberating event of the Reformation
as being'sLuther'svictoriousconclusionthatman'sdestiny mustcometo pass 'withinmanhimself/
as
even thoughhe still consideredits content being something given from without,by revela-
tion,"Loewith,FromHegelto Nietzsche, pp. 337-38.
llEssence,p. 89.
48See GuytonB. Hammond,Man in Estrangement: A Comparison of the Thoughtof Paul
Tillichand Erich Fromm,pp. 8-9, 19. "In a statementthat remindsone of Kierkegaard,
FeuerbachdescribesHegel as the exampleof a self-sufficient, professional thinkerwhose real
existencewas secured by the state and consequentlyremainedwitho;utsignificance for his
philosophy. As such, Hegel did not know real existence and real life. Only the isolated
thinkerwho is removedfromthe real, concreteworldcould maintainthe supremacy and self-
"
sufficiency of abstractthought. 'The absolutespiritof nothingbut the absoluteprofessor.'
Vogel,pp. liii-liv.
^Essence, p. 90.
117

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Not outside us, then, not in the object of faith itself, but in us lie
purpose and meaning of this object of faith. Not that Christ is Christ, but
that he is Christ for you; not that he died or that he suffered,but that he
died for you, sufferedfor you ? that is the main point.50

It was the genius of Luther to point out this aspect of the Christian faith.

Luther was the firstto let out the secret of Christian faith. The word
which in the older faith is only a commentary,Luther makes into the text;
the light which the formerhides under the bushel he places upon the bushel
so that it may illuminate the eyes of everyone. The key to the mysteries
of faith lies in us; the riddle of the Christian faith is resolved in us. Not
only did God become man for us, not only did he sufferfor us, as is stated
in the Nicene Creed, but he is God for us, omnipotentCreator for us, Holy
Spirit for us. In short, it is for as that he is what he is ? the "us" runs
through all the articles; the "us" encompasses and includes all the articles
in itself. The older faith also says, "Our Lord, Our God," but it underlines
the "God"; Luther, on the other hand, underlines the "our." That is, he
makes the fact that he is ours an essential attribute of God himself. God
is not God if he is not our God. We are the salt not only of the earth
but also of heaven. If God sat in heaven for himself alone," says Luther,
"like a block, he would not be God." God is a word the sole meaning of
which is man.51

This religious humanization is the work of Protestantism.

Protestantism is no longer concerned, as Catholicism, about what

God is in himself,but about what he is for man; it has, therefore,no longer
a speculative or contemplativetendency, as is the case in Catholicism. It is
no longer theology; it is essentially Christology, that is, religious anthro-
pology.52
Ronald Gregor Smith sees this "incarnationai" aspect of Christian the?
ology in Feuerbach and Luther. He points to Feuerbach's concern to
"
disprove the need for believing in God as a special existence provided
in the form of miracles and other special effects." And while Smith un-
derstands that Feuerbach's perspective was in the context of the Enlight-
enment's discussion for and against special revelation, he believes that
Feuerbach was close to expressing a fresh understanding of transcen-
dence.

. . . the interestingthing about this argument of Feuerbach's is that he is

pleading against the old arguments about the transcendentpower of God
for what he calls a historical existence of God. That he identifies this

SOLuther, p. 48; Feuerbach'sitalics.

ullbid., 59; Feuerbach'sitalics. Feuerbachused clustersof Lutherquotationswhichsome?
timesrun for a page or two throughout this workin particularbut also in his ofherworks.
See also Reisz,p. 185.
52Principles,p. 5 (#3).
118

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:43:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions