Troeltsch’s Difficult Legacy. Critical Remarks on the Two Models of Protestant Reformation Studies. Part 1: Terms (Ecumenism – Irenicism – Toleration) and Doctrines

On the basis of the seminal paper On the Historical and Dogmatic Methods in Theology authored by Ernst Troeltsch and of critical assessments of his polemicists, mainly Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Bultmann, this article aims to recognise the recent tendencies in theological and philosophical development of the studies devoted to the early modern Protestant thought. The subject matter of the paper, which is not a bibliographical study but a description of current intellectual history, is concerned with the consequences of Troeltsch’s thesis, namely the separation of scientific lore together with its particular and different goals – the theological one concerned with doctrinal questions, and the historical one concerned with rise, development and change. Due to the doctrinal problems discussed in the first part, the contemporary ecumenical movement appears to be the main driving factor for theological recognition of early modern Protestant doctrines. Beside the several unquestionable benefits of the recent intensification of Reformation studies in Poland, there are also several disadvantages or inherent limitations of this branch of Polish scholarship. First of all, the conceptual framework typical for ecumenism poses a threat of anachronic attitude to the specificity of early modern religious realities that were different from contemporary conditions of the ecumenical movement. Secondly, it may overlook the semantic changes undergone by the historical meanings and modes of usage of particular terms, once used for specific intended purposes. Consequently, basic concepts devoid of historical significance  like irenicism, toleration and ecumenism, lacking their Begriffsgeschichte clarifications, are too often used interchangeably, although there are pivotal differences between them. Moreover, the area of​the interest of ecumenism is currently restricted to the historical precedents (irenicism, for instance) of the modern strive for an interconfessional agreement and is limited merely to the questions that divide contemporary Christianity (for example, the Lutheran doctrine of justification). Therefore, numerous other theological problems of Protestant Reformation are ignored.

The second part of this paper will discuss the historical facet of the specificity of Troeltsch’s legacy.

On the basis of the seminal paper On the Historical and Dogmatic Methods in Theology authored by Ernst Troeltsch and of critical assessments of his polemicists, mainly Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Bultmann, this article aims to recognise the recent tendencies in theological and philosophical development of the studies devoted to the early modern Protestant thought. The subject matter of the paper, which is not a bibliographical study but a description of current intellectual history, is concerned with the consequences of Troeltsch’s thesis, namely the separation of scientific lore together with its particular and different goals – the theological one concerned with doctrinal questions, and the historical one concerned with rise, development and change. Due to the doctrinal problems discussed in the first part, the contemporary ecumenical movement appears to be the main driving factor for theological recognition of early modern Protestant doctrines. Beside the several unquestionable benefits of the recent intensification of Reformation studies in Poland, there are also several disadvantages or inherent limitations of this branch of Polish scholarship. First of all, the conceptual framework typical for ecumenism poses a threat of anachronic attitude to the specificity of early modern religious realities that were different from contemporary conditions of the ecumenical movement. Secondly, it may overlook the semantic changes undergone by the historical meanings and modes of usage of particular terms, once used for specific intended purposes. Consequently, basic concepts devoid of historical significance  like irenicism, toleration and ecumenism, lacking their Begriffsgeschichte clarifications, are too often used interchangeably, although there are pivotal differences between them. Moreover, the area of​the interest of ecumenism is currently restricted to the historical precedents (irenicism, for instance) of the modern strive for an interconfessional agreement and is limited merely to the questions that divide contemporary Christianity (for example, the Lutheran doctrine of justification). Therefore, numerous other theological problems of Protestant Reformation are ignored.

The second part of this paper will discuss the historical facet of the specificity of Troeltsch’s legacy.