Martin Luther in contemporary Finnish systematic theology

In what follows I sketch out some main lines of recent Luther research in Finland. In the first part of this paper, I refer to historical development that has formed, with several other factors, the background of recent discussion. I then shift the focus upon the so-called Mannermaa School, the most debated Finnish contribution to the international scene. The paper is finished by noting some studies that are relatively independent of the Mannermaa School but have influenced it.

1. Historical notes[i]

In medieval times, advanced Finnish students of theology got their training in European Universities, mainly in Prague, Vienna, and Paris. Some of them studied in German universities and among those students was Mikael Agricola who is called the Reformer of Finland. A student of Philip Melanchthon, Agricola was familiar with Luther to some extent and apparently also met him personally. However, even though there were early contacts with German Reformation and its doctrines, Finnish theologians did not draw heavily from Luther until 19th century. At those times, central figures of local pietism began to utilise Luther’s thinking in construing their own theology. One of the most remarkable of them was Fredrik Gabriel Hedberg. Moreover, tractates and books of Luther were eagerly translated into Finnish.

One of the first professional theologians interested in Luther was A. W. Ingman, Professor of Exegetics in Helsinki University from 1864. Ingman was influenced by the Württenbergian pietist Johann Tobias Beck whose biblical emphasises very dominant in Finnish ecclesiastical theology more than half century. According to Ingman’s view, the Christ in us aspect (in nobis) and the Christ pro us aspect (pro nobis) are more closely connected with each other in Luther’s theology than it is the case in Confessional Lutheranism. Ingman argued that the view put forward by Andreas Osiander was too heavily rejected in the early Lutheranism. In so arguing Ingman preceded some characteristics of later Finnish Luther research. Several central figures of Finnish theology have been interested in the question of the relationship between justification and sanctification and differences between Luther and Lutheranism.

The first internationally known Finnish studies on Luther were published little before the World War Second. The first Finnish scholar to come to the international scene was Professor Eino Sormunen who published his Die Eigenart der lutherischen Ethic in 1936.[ii] Some years before he had published the classic of Finnish Luther research, Jumalan armo II (The grace of God II).[iii] It never was translated into other languages. At the same times, Yrjö J. E. Alanen published a study Das Gewissen bei Luther.[iv] To some extent, Sormunen followed Karl Holl who in his studies had emphasised the importance of young Luther and interpreted the ethical question as central to his spirituality. Sormunen’s interpretation was not a copy of that of Holl, however. Besides Holl, Sormunen was familiar with international discussion the central representatives of which were German theologians Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch and Erich Vogelsang, and Swedish Ragnar Bring.

Professor Lennart Pinomaa is perhaps the most well-known Finnish Luther scholar. His doctoral thesis (1938) was Der Zorn Gottes in der Theologie Luthers.[v] Two years later he published a study named Der existentielle Charakter der Theologie Luthers.[vi] Pinomaa’s international reputation is based upon his lectures giving a general account of Luther’s theology. He compiled them under the title Voittava usko (Victorious faith). The book is translated into several languages.[vii]

Pinomaa was partly influenced by the so called Lundian motif research put forward by Professor Anders Nygren and his colleagues. The most remarkable Finnish theologian influenced by that school was, however, Lauri Haikola. Haikola occupied the chair in Helsinki University in 1958. Before that Haikola had conducted his studies in Lund and Uppsala over the decade. Haikola’s doctoral thesis concerned Matthias Illyricus Flacius,[viii] but he shortly shifted his focus upon the differences between Luther and Lutheranism. His main works are Usus legis and Studien zu Luther und zum Luthertum.[ix] According to Haikola, Luther did not accept the view of the third use of law (usus tertius legis) expressed in Formula Concordie, the interpretation adapted also to Pinomaa. According to Haikola’s interpretation, for Luther law has only the role in general social life and as a prevention raising the need of grace but not as a special order revealed only to believers. According to Haikola, it was rather Philip Melanchthon who was the Reformer than Luther himself. This was due to the fact that Luther’s intentions concerning justification, the question of the free will and his view of the role of law were put aside in later Lutheranism and ideas created by Melanchthon were more typical of it.[x]

2. The Mannermaa School

Coming from the history of Finnish theology referred above, the most discussed project in Finnish systematic theology during the last two decades has been the interpretation of the theology of Martin Luther put forward by Tuomo Mannermaa, Professor Emeritus of Ecumenics of Helsinki University. In literature, the group of Finnish authors has been called either the Mannermaa School or Mannermaa circle. I prefer Mannermaa circle for the following reasons. Without hesitation, Tuomo Mannermaa, who began his career with studies on modern Roman Catholic philosophy of religion (Karl Rahner), is the leading figure in Finnish Luther research. However, some Finnish authors who have published studies on Luther are rather students of Mannermaa and some other rather scholars sharing Mannermaa’s main ideas but providing more independent contributions. The first group could be pretty easily characterised the Mannermaa School. Representatives of it are Dr. Sammeli Juntunen, Dr. Kari Kopperi, Director of the Educational Centre of Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church, Dr. Simo Peura, Bishop of Lapua, Risto Saarinen, who has occupied Mannermaa’s chair, Dr. Antti Raunio, and some others. The second group is more appropriately characterised colleagues with sympathy. They are Dr. Juhani Forsberg, Dr. Eero Huovinen, Bishop of Helsinki, and Professor Eeva Martikainen.[xi] In what follows my aim is to sketch out an introduction only to the Mannermaa School. For they are studies published by Tuomo Mannermaa himself or his students belonging to the research project funded by the Academy of Finland which has been found either as the breakthrough in Luther research or as a problematic approach.[xii]

The beginning of the Mannermaa School should be traced back to ecumenical dialogue between Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church. In the meeting arranged in Kiev in 1977, Mannermaa delivered a speech ”Salvation as justification and divinisation.” Shortly after that he published a larger study In ipsa fide Christus adest.[xiii] In this study Mannermaa analyses the relation between justification and christology, the holiness of Christians based upon the indwelling of Christ and some ecclesiological aspects associated with these themes in Luther’s theology, particularly in his Commentary on Galatians (1535). Mannermaa argues that Luther’s conception of justification is analogical to the notion of divinisation (theopoiesis/theosis) expressed in the Eastern theology. The phrase of Luther himself, the name of Mannermaa’s study expresses the key idea of the Mannermaa School: Christ is really present in faith itself. According to Mannermaa’s analysis, Luther’s view of the relationship between believers and Christ is different from that of Lutheranism expressed in its Confession. Differently from Formula Concordie, Luther thinks that justification and sanctification belong together. Christ is both favor (favor) and gift (donum) in such a way that His indwelling in a believer causes participation in divine properties such as life, righteousness, and love. Such an understanding of justification means that Christian faith involves a stronger subjective impact than it is argued in Confessional books, particularly in their account of forensic justification.

In his study Kaksi rakkautta (Two Loves) Mannermaa elaborates an interpretation of Luther’s theology that resembles Anders Nygren’s distinction between eros and agape but is remarkably different from it as being rather a theological than philosophical account.[xiv] The main source of this study is Luther’s disputation in Heidelberg in 1518. For Mannermaa the key idea of the disputation is the distinction between the love of man (amor hominis) and the love of God (amor Dei). The object of the love of God is nothing in itself whereas the object of the love of man is something in itself. The love of God creates its object whereas the love of man finds its object. This view is associated with the distinction between the theology of the cross (theologia crusis) and the theology of glory (theologia gloriae). When creating its object the love of God nihilates its object and creates it out of nothing. God can be found in misery the deepest expression of which is the cross of Christ. From the point of view of the theology of glory God can be found in his glory in heaven. The theology of glory passes by suffering, shame, and dead. Accordingly, the theology of the cross finds God in His opposites.[xv]

In his first study, Mannermaa had argued that Luther’s idea of the relationship between Christians and Christ should be understood as an ontological category, even though not necessarily in the sense of Aristotelian metaphysics. He labelled such an interpretation real-ontic, the term apparently coming from Heideggerian philosophy. He pointed out that this kind of reading of Luther’s texts is different from mainstream research in European theology. According to Mannermaa, modern Luther research is committed to philosophical suppositions that are foreign for Luther. Luther is better to read in the light of medieval and patristic thinking, and when interpreting him in the setting of modern philosophical thought, his ideas are not understood in a relevant way.

It was the aim of Risto Saarinen’s doctoral thesis to examine philosophical suppositions associated with modern Luther research. In his thesis Saarinen argues that neo-Kantian Hermann Lotze’s and Hermann Cohen’s philosophy influenced modern Luther research. According to Saarinen, Neo-Protestant theologians used Lotze’s and Cohen’s thinking in developing an ’effective ontology’ the aim of which was to replace traditional ontology. In the light of effective ontology, it does not make sense to claim that Christ himself is present in faith in a real way. They are his effects that influence believers so that the will of a believer is oriented in a new way. This kind of interpretation was above all adapted to Karl Holl in his celebrated studies on Luther’s theology. It was typical of all remarkable protestant German Luther scholars after him.[xvi]

Linked to Saarinen’s thesis on philosophical suppositions in Luther research, Kari Kopperi analyses in his doctoral thesis Paradoksien teologia (Theology of Paradoxis) Heidelberg disputation. In his large study, Kopperi argues that Walter von Loewenich’s classical interpretation of Heidelberg disputation according to which it is the distinction of the theology of the cross and the theology of the glory that is the key of Luther’s theology is influenced by the neo-Protestant theology and its philosophical suppositions foreign to Luther himself. Kopperi analyses also Luther’s view on the relationship between philosophy and theology. For Kopperi Luther’s view on philosophy resembles classical understanding of ancilla theologiae. Philosophy should be a servant of theology. What comes to purely theological matters it should be silent of because of the paradoxical nature of theological things based upon the divine revelation.[xvii]
Mannermaa’s emphasis of real-ontic relationship between believers and Christ and the idea of philosophical commitments of neo-Protestant Luther research examined by Saarinen, are applied in more detailed doctoral theses written by Simo Peura, Antti Raunio, and Sammeli Juntunen. In his profound study Mehr als ein Mensch, Simo Peura analyses Luther’s theology of deification. In brief, his results are as follows. The deification is based upon the indwelling of Christ. By the virtue of real presence of Christ a Christian participates in righteousness of Christ. Even though the participation is real it can not be perceived by human beings.[xviii] According to Antti Raunio's thesis Summe des Christlichen Lebens upon the interpretation of the Golden Rule in Luther’s theology, also the full following the Golden Rule is based upon the indwelling of Christ. The radical change of the direction of selfish human love is necessary when followed the Golden Rule. It is such a change that is based upon the indwelling.[xix] In his Der Begriff des Nichts bei Luther, Sammeli Juntunen argues that in Luther’s view, everyone is ontologically dependent upon God. The nothingness (non esse) of a Christian is an aspect of the new being (novum esse) of he or she. A Christian is made nothing (annihilatio) in himself or herself by opus alienum Dei in order to participate in the new being formed by Christ. [xx]

It is understandable that above mentioned arguments have raised a great debate. At first sight they appear to be an assault against the interpretation of Luther put forward perhaps the most remarkable German Luther scholar, namely Professor Gerhard Ebeling.[xxi] A student of Rudolf Bultmann, Ebeling has developed the hermeneutic interpretation on Luther’s theology. According to Mannermaa, rather than existential in the sense of Ebeling’s interpretation, Luther’s theology is ontological by its very nature. It may involve some interest to note that Ebeling’s view has been criticised also outside the Mannermaa School in Finland. AcademyProfessor Simo Knuuttila has pointed out that the conception of language which is characteristic of hermeneutic theology is seriously problematic in the light of the results of analytic philosophy of language. Knuuttila refers to Professor Jaakko Hintikka’s theory associated with the model semantics according to which the truth is ineffable but this does imply that one can say nothing about the truth.[xxii]

Mannermaa’s interpretation involves interesting ecumenical questions. For one thing, it was ordinary argued that Luther’s theology encounters Eastern Orthodoxian theology, since his view on justification is at least analogous to the idea of divinisation. However, modern Orthodoxian theology created theologians such as John Meyendorff is dominated by the so called neo-Palamism based upon the theology of St. Gregory Palamas who lived in 14th century. Palamas made a distinction between essence (ousia) and energy (energeia) of God. According to Palamas, it is only energy of God that can be known by believers whereas His essence not. It is not fair to argue that for the Mannermaa School, believers know the essence of God since they participate in it. Also for the Mannermaa School God is hidden. However, it is an interesting theological question what is the relationship between the real-ontological interpretation of the Mannermaa School and the neo-Palamist ideas.[xxiii]

Secondly, Mannermaa’s closest theological company in Germany was to found in Roman Catholic circle. In Roman Catholic Luther research, two figures raise their head above others. They are Otto-Hermann Pesch and Peter Manns who elaborated further the interpretation of Luther put forward his teacher Joseph Lortz. According to Pesch Luther should be accepted as a catholic theologian whereas Manns finds him partly heretic. However, according to Manns, Luther is one of the ’Fathers of faith’ for both Lutherans and Roman Catholic believers.[xxiv] Many students of Mannermaa have filled their training in Institute for European History in Mainz the director of which Manns was. It was a plan of Tuomo Mannermaa and Peter Manns to write a common systematic account of Luther’s theology as a theology of both faith and love. Exitus of Manns caused the cut of wings of this project.

After the co-operation with Manns the Mannermaa School got support from United States. Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson begun to characterise the Finnish research breakthrough.[xxv] It should be noted that Braaten and Jenson have been co-workers in the ecumenical centre that is devoted in the questions concerning the ecumenical relationships between Roman Catholic and Protestant tradition. Because of the influence of Peter Manns and Braaten and Jenson, it seems that the Finnish interpretation of Luther is tended to find good relationship with Roman Catholic circles whereas its relationship with Orthodox theology is not as close as it was in the early period of the discussion. In my view, a central question concerning this relationship is associated with the relation between the ontological view adopted by Finns and the ousia/energeia distinction in Orthodoxian theology.

3. Luther in Finnish philosophy of religion

Another well-known circle in Finnish systematic theology is philosophy of religion the main figure of which is AcademyProfessor Simo Knuuttila. He refers to Luther in some of his articles but has not written detailed study of his theology. Among other remarks, Knuuttila has pointed out that if it is true that Christ himself is the actor of good works of a believer, whether it makes sense to regard Luther’s theological ethics as a theory of ethics at all. In moral theories, the idea of human actor is one of their characteristics.[xxvi]

Knuuttila’s colleague, Professor Reijo Työrinoja has published rather large articles on Luther’s view of theological language. According to Työrinoja’s interpretation, theological language for Luther is a new kind of language (nova lingua) that is radically different from philosophical language.[xxvii] In the light of Työrinoja’s interpretation, it seems that the syntax (words and grammar) of the theological language are known to believers but they have remarkable problems in comprehending the semantics of it. Closely related to Työrinoja’s investigations, Professor Heikki Kirjavainen has largely written about the semantical questions associated with Luther’s theology and the theory of will in it.[xxviii]

One outstanding thesis on Luther in the field of philosophy of religion is Kalevi Tanskanen’s study on Luther’s economical ideas. Tanskanen analyses traditional views of money and terms linked to it. According to Tanskanen’s study, Luther can not be regarded as a predecessor of capitalism but his view on this subject was more traditional.[xxix]

In my own study on religious emotions, I have referred to Luther’s conceptions of faith and certainty in his earlier commentary on Galatians. In my view, for Luther faith (fiducia) is a certain affect convincing a believer that the sentence ”Jesus Christ is my redeemer” applies to him or her. Luther did not manage to solve some issues concerning religious certainty put forward in medieval theology. His aim was to create a view of special spiritual certainty based on the nature of faith itself.[xxx] My point here is one example of interest in Luther that can be found in Finnish theological studies which are not devoted to Luther. The picture of Finnish Luther research involves more than one dimension even though its widely known achievements belong to Professor Tuomo Mannermaa and his students. When forming a picture of it, it should be taken into account that many studies have been neglected in this short introduction.



[i] My account is mainly based on Eino Murtorinne, ”Die Bedeutung Luthers für die finnischen Erweckungsbewegungen im 19. Jahrhundert”, in Luther in Finland, ed. by M. Ruokanen, Schriften der Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft A 22, Helsinki 1984, pp. 11-23 and Kauko Pirinen, Seitsenpäinen Luther[Seven Heads of Luther], SLEY, Helsinki 1984. For the history of Finnish theology in general, see Eino Murtorinne, The History of Finnish Theology 1828-1918, Helsinki 1988.
[ii] Eino Sormunen, Die Eigenart der lutherischen Ethic, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B XXIX, 1, Helsinki 1936.
[iii] Eino Sormunen, Jumalan armo II, Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja XXIII, Helsinki 1934.
[iv] Yrjö J. E. Alanen, Das Gewissen bei Luther, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B XXIX, 2, Helsinki 1934.
[v] Lennart Pinomaa, Der Zorn Gottes in der Theologie Luthers, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B XLI, 1, Helsinki 1938.
[vi] Lennart Pinomaa, Der existentielle Charakter der Theologie Luthers, Helsinki 1940.
[vii] Lennart Pinomaa, Voittava usko [Victorious Faith] WSOY, Helsinki 1959. Translations, e.g., into English and German languages.
[viii] Lauri Haikola, Gesetz und Evangelium bei Mathias Flacius Illyricus, Studia Theologica Lundensia 1, Lund 1952.
[ix] Lauri Haikola, Studien zu Luther und zum Luthertum, Uppsala universitets årsskrift 1958:2, Lund 1958; Usus Legis, Uppsala universitets årsskrift 1958:3, Lund 1958.
[x] See Haikola, ”Melanchthons und Luthers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung” in Luther und Melanchthon, ed. V Vatja, Vanhenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1961, pp. 89-103.
[xi] See Juhani Forsberg, Das Abrahambild in der Theologie Luthers. Pater fidei sanctissimus, Veröffentlichungen des Institus für Europäische Geschichte Mains, Stuttgart 1984; Eero Huovinen, Kuolemattomuudesta osallinen. Martti Lutherin kuoleman teologian perusongelma [Participating in immortality], Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 130, Helsinki 1982; Fides infantium. Martti Lutherin käsitys lapsen uskosta [Fides infantium. Martin Luther’s conception of the faith of child], Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 175, Helsinki 1991; Eeva Martikainen, Doctrina. Studien zu Luthers Begriff der Lehre, Schiften der Luther-Agricola Gesellschaft 26, Helsinki 1992. Mannermaa’s view of Luther has influenced strongly some Finnish studies on Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism, too. See Seppo Haavisto, Mystistä spiritualismia vai luterilaista teologiaa. Bengt Jacob Ignatiuksen teologia pietismin tutkimushistorian valossa, Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 195, Helsinki 1995; Matti Repo, Uskon lahja vai rakkauden päämäärä? Johann Arndtin käsitys vanhurskauttamisesta ja uniosta, Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 206, Helsinki 1997; Arto Seppänen, Unio Christi. Union ja vanhurskauttamisen suhde Anders Nohrborgin postillassa, Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 211, Helsinki 1997. Recently, Olli-Pekka Vainio has introduced critical views on Mannermaa’s tradition in his Luterilaisen vanhurskauttamisopin kehitys Lutherista Yksimielisyyden ohjeeseen, Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja, Helsinki 2004.
[xii] For introduction to both Mannermaa School and circle, see Union with Christ. The New Finnish interpretation of Luther, ed. by C. E. Braaten & R. W. Jenson, Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Camridge 1998; Steffen Kjeldgaard-Pedersen, ”Der finnische Beitrag zur heutigen Lutherforschung,” in Nordiskt Forum 1, eds. by T. Mannermaa, P. Järveläinen, K. Kopperi, Luther-Agricola Gesellschaft, Helsinki 1993, pp. 7-23. For discussion, see compilations of articles Thesaurus Lutheri. Auf der Suche nach neuen Paradigmen der Luther-Forschung, eds. by T. Mannermaa, A. Ghiselli, S. Peura, Luther-Agricola Gesellschaft 24, Helsinki 1987; Luther und Theosis. Vergöttlichung als Thema der abendländischen Theologie, eds. by S. Peura and A. Raunio, Luther-Agricola Gesellschaft 25, Helsinki 1990;Luther und Ontologie. Das Sein Christi im Glauben als Strukturierendes Prinzip der Theologie Luthers, eds. by. A. Ghiselli, K. Kopperi, R. Vinke, Luther-Agricola Gesellschaft 31, Helsinki 1993.
[xiii] Tuomo Mannermaa, In ipsa fide Christus adest. Luterilaisen ja ortodoksisen kristinuskonkäsityksen leikkauspiste, Missiologian ja ekumeniikan seuran julkaisuja XXX, Helsinki 1980.
[xiv] Tuomo Mannermaa, Kaksi rakkautta. Johdatus Lutherin uskonmaailmaan, WSOY, Juva 1983.
[xv] Mannermaa’s above mentioned two studies and some other main works are published in German language, see Tuomo Mannermaa, Der im Glauben Gegenwärtige Christus. Rechtfertigung und Vergottung Zum ökumenischen Dialog, (Arbeiten zur Geschichte und Theologie des Luthertums. Neue Folge Band 8), Lutherisches Verlagshaus, Hannover 1989.
[xvi] Risto Saarinen, Gottes Wirken auf uns. Die transzendentale Deutung des Gegenwart-Christi-Motivs in der Lutherforschung, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, Wiesbaden 1989.
[xvii] Kari Kopperi, Paradoksien teologia. Lutherin disputaatio Heidelbergissa 1518, Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 208, Helsinki 1997.
[xviii] Simo Peura, Mehr als ein Mensch? Die Vergöttlichung als Thema der Theologie Martin Luthers von 1513 bis 1519, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, Wiesbaden 1994.
[xix] Antti Raunio, Summe des Christichen Lebens. Die ”Goldene Regel” als Gesetz der Liebe in der Theologie Martin Luthers von 1510 bis 1527, Reports from the Department of Systematic Theology 13, University of Helsinki, Helsinki 1993.
[xx] Sammeli Juntunen, Der Begriff des Nichts bei Luther in den Jahren von 1510 bis 1523, Luther-Agricola Gesellschaft 36, Helsinki 1996.
[xxi] See, e.g. Sammeli Juntunen, ”Luther and Metaphysics: What Is the Structure of Being according to Luther?” in Union with Christ, pp. 129-160.
[xxii] Simo Knuuttila, ”Revelation and Language” in Revelation and Experience [Utrechtse Theologische Reeks 33), eds. by V. Brümmer and M. Sarot, Faculteit der Godgeleerdheit, Universiteit Utrecht 1996.
[xxiii] For neopalamism see, e.g. Hannu Kamppuri, ”Theosis in der Theologie des Gregorios Palamas” in Luther und Theosis, pp. 49-60.
[xxiv] For Roman Catholic Luther research, see, e.g. Peter Manns, ”Zum Gespräch zwischen M. Luther und der katholischen Theologie. Begegnung zwischen patristisch-monastischer und reformatorischer Theologie and der Scholastik vorbei,” in Thesaurus Lutheri, pp. 63-154.
[xxv] Braaten & Jenson, Union with Christ.
[xxvi] Simo Knuuttila, ”Luterilainen teologinen etiikka” [Lutheran Theological Ethics] in Usko ja rakkaus. Luterilaisen teologian mahdollisuudet tänään, ed. by S. Peura, Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 195, Helsinki, pp. 103-115.
[xxvii] Reijo Työrinoja. ”Proprietas Verbi: Luther’s Conception of Philosophical and Theological Language in the Disputation: Verbum caro factum est (Joh. 1: 14) 1539” in Faith, Will and Grammar. Some Themes of Intensional Logic and semantics in Medieval and Reformation Thought, ed. by H. Kirjavainen, Luther-Agricola Society 15, Helsinki, pp. 141-178.
[xxviii] See, e.g., ”Luther und Aristoteles. Die Frage der zweifachen Gerechtigkeit im Lichte der transitiven vs. intransitiven Willenstheorie” in Luther in Finland, pp. 111-129.
[xxix] Kalevi Tanskanen, Luther ja keskiajan talousetiikka [Luther and medieval ethics of economy), Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 169, Helsinki 1990.
[xxx] Petri Järveläinen, A Study on Religious Emotions, Luther-Agricola Society, Helsinki 2000.