question on Martin Luther

[HereIstand.Todd]

Most of the reformed books I read mention Martin Luther and say he believed in Calvinism. Is this true? Because most Lutherans say no he did not! Please only answers from Reformed Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, other Calvinists, and Lutherans.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hi Todd, to answer your question, Martin Luther was definitely not a Calvinist (technically the word "Calvinist" is not found historically until the Synod of Dordt, and dissenters used the term as an insult, similar with the word "Puritan"). However, there was a great deal of agreement between Luther and the other Reformers. For example, Martin Luther in his classic work "The Bondage of the Will", he wrote against the common Roman Catholic conception of "free will" at that time in debate format with RC scholar Erasmus. Luther championed the Solas, and especially the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Calvinists have more in common with Lutherans than with most Arminian groups.

 

[Edward65]

Most of the reformed books I read mention Martin Luther and say he believed in Calvinism. Is this true? Because most Lutherans say no he did not! Please only answers from Reformed Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, other Calvinists, and Lutherans.

I'm in agreement with Luther on the doctrines he taught being thoroughly Scriptural so I'm Lutheran, although I don't call myself a Lutheran because I don't want to be subsumed under Lutheranism, as what passes for Lutheranism today is in many respects not truly Lutheran - if one defines this as according to what Luther himself taught and believed.

Predestination to heaven and hell was definitely taught by Luther in his book: "The Bondage of the Will", and anyone who reads this without any ideological blinkers on should be able to see that. However unfortunately most who openly identify themselves as Lutherans won't accept the fact that Luther held predestination to both heaven and hell (and was therefore Calvinist on predestination) and try and maintain that Luther only believed in predestination to heaven. This misunderstanding can be traced back to the Formula of Concord of 1580 (which is a confessional document of the Lutheran churches), which explicitly rejected predestination to hell, and to which many Lutheran churches at that time pledged allegiance. However this wasn't Luther's position regardless of what those who call themselves Lutherans may say to the contrary.

 

[Edward65]

I would like to add some comments to my last post which is that I’m assuming that when you refer to those who say Luther was a Calvinist that you’re only talking with reference to predestination, as that is what those who say Luther was a Calvinist generally mean. On other subjects there were differences (e.g. Luther believed in the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper as do I). So Luther was a Calvinist but this applies only to predestination. Yes they obviously shared other beliefs which are central to Christianity such as justification through faith alone, but that doesn’t necessarily mean, or it is meaningful to say that Luther was a Calvinist - it would be more appropriate in this instance to say that Calvin was a Lutheran.

The important point is that Luther endorsed predestination to both heaven and hell and therefore was what has become termed Calvinist in his theology. However this doesn’t mean that Luther agreed completely wih Calvinism. Luther defended universal redemption – the Biblical doctrine that Christ died for everyone and not just the elect - and therefore he wasn’t a 5 point Calvinist but only a 4 point one. There may be other differences as well but as I’m not an expert on this I can’t say.

 

[AndOne]

I'm fairly certain Luther taught Limited Atonement in "The Bondage of the Will," For example: "As to why some are touched by the law and others not, so that some receive and others scorn the offer of grace...[this is the] hidden will of God, Who, according to His own counsel, ordains such persons as He wills to receive and partake of the mercy preached and offered." pg. 169

 

[Edward65]

I'm fairly certain Luther taught Limited Atonement in "The Bondage of the Will," For example: "As to why some are touched by the law and others not, so that some receive and others scorn the offer of grace...[this is the] hidden will of God, Who, according to His own counsel, ordains such persons as He wills to receive and partake of the mercy preached and offered." pg. 169

You’ve misunderstood Luther here because he’s talking about predestination and why not everybody accepts the Gospel. Grace is offered to everyone because Christ has atoned for everyone’s sins, but only those who have been ordained to salvation by God’s hidden will are able to take advantage of this mercy which is preached and offered to all.

A bit further on Luther says: “Therefore it is rightly said, 'if God does not desire our death, it is to be laid to the charge of our own will, if we perish:' this, I say, is right, if you speak of God preached. For He desires that all men should be saved, seeing that, He comes unto all by the word of salvation, and it is the fault of the will which does not receive Him: as He saith. (Matt. xxiii. 37.) "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not!" But why that Majesty does not take away or change this fault of the will in all, seeing that, it is not in the power of man to do it; or why He lays that to the charge of the will, which the man cannot avoid, it becomes us not to inquire, and though you should inquire much, yet you will never find out: as Paul saith, (Rom. ix, 20,) "Who art thou that repliest against God!" (Section 64, Cole)

Luther says “For He desires that all men should be saved, seeing that, He comes unto all by the word of salvation”, and that the reason why not all are saved is because of the fault in man’s will, which God doesn’t remove, which rejects the word of salvation. Please note that Luther doesn’t say that the reason why people are damned is because Christ hasn’t atoned for their sins, but rather that the reason why people are damned is because the Father (the Majesty as Luther terms Him) hasn’t changed their faulty wills which reject the word of salvation i.e. the Gospel.

The New Testament, properly, consists of promises and exhortations, even as the Old, properly, consists of laws and threatenings. For in the New Testament, the Gospel is preached; which is nothing else than the word, by which, are offered unto us the Spirit, grace; and the remission of sins obtained for us by Christ crucified; and all entirely free, through the mere mercy of God the Father, thus favouring us unworthy creatures, who deserve damnation rather than any thing else. (Section 69, Cole)

 

[AndOne]

Still sounds like LA to me...

 

[Edward65]

Still sounds like LA to me...

Here's another quote from The Bondage of the Will:

The God Incarnate, then, here speaks thus “I would and thou wouldst not!” The God Incarnate, I say, was sent for this purpose that He might desire, speak, do, suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation, although He should offend many, who, being either left or hardened by that secret will of Majesty, should not receive Him thus desiring, speaking, doing, and offering: as John i. 5, saith, “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.” And again, “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not". (Section 66, Cole)

Also in his Commentary on Galatians he says with reference to chapter 1 verse 4:

"Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...."

 

[Skala]

Here's another quote from The Bondage of the Will:

The God Incarnate, then, here speaks thus “I would and thou wouldst not!” The God Incarnate, I say, was sent for this purpose that He might desire, speak, do, suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation, although He should offend many, who, being either left or hardened by that secret will of Majesty, should not receive Him thus desiring, speaking, doing, and offering: as John i. 5, saith, “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.” And again, “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not". (Section 66, Cole)

Also in his Commentary on Galatians he says with reference to chapter 1 verse 4:

"Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...."

I guess I disagree with Luther on the atonement, then, because if Christ took away everyone's sins, there is no sins leftover for God to find them guilty by.

Logically, that means universalism.

John Owen's dilemma comes to mind now...

Christ either took away:

all the sins of all men - everyone is saved
some of the sins of all men - nobody is saved
all of the sins of some men - some men are saved

If he took away all the sins of all men, that means all are saved, for there is nothing leftover for God to punish. If God punishes men that Christ took the sins for, that means God is punishing Christ for one offense, so we have a double jeopardy situation. God can't punish someone for a sin that Christ was already punished for, that would be unjust

If he took away some of the sins of all men, then nobody will be saved, because we all have sins leftover which is enough to condemn us.

 

[Edward65]

I guess I disagree with Luther on the atonement, then, because if Christ took away everyone's sins, there is no sins leftover for God to find them guilty by.

Logically, that means universalism.

John Owen's dilemma comes to mind now...

Christ either took away:

all the sins of all men - everyone is saved
some of the sins of all men - nobody is saved
all of the sins of some men - some men are saved

If he took away all the sins of all men, that means all are saved, for there is nothing leftover for God to punish. If God punishes men that Christ took the sins for, that means God is punishing Christ for one offense, so we have a double jeopardy situation. God can't punish someone for a sin that Christ was already punished for, that would be unjust

If he took away some of the sins of all men, then nobody will be saved, because we all have sins leftover which is enough to condemn us.

I don't accept that your logic holds because it ignores the intermediary of faith in the equation. Your equation of universal atonement = universal salvation isn't correct because the correct equation is universal atonement + faith = salvation. God has made salvation dependent on accepting Christ's atonement in faith such that if a person doesn't have faith his sins aren't forgiven, even though Christ has atoned for them.

Luther held that God has two wills, a revealed will which through Christ desired everyone's salvation and by which Christ atoned for everyone's sins, and a hidden will which determined who should be given faith in order to believe in Christ's atonement and be saved.

 

[Skala]

I don't accept that your logic holds because it ignores the intermediary of faith in the equation. Your equation of universal atonement = universal salvation isn't correct because the correct equation is universal atonement + faith = salvation. God has made salvation dependent on accepting Christ's atonement in faith such that if a person doesn't have faith his sins aren't forgiven, even though Christ has atoned for them.

Luther held that God has two wills, a revealed will which through Christ desired everyone's salvation and by which Christ atoned for everyone's sins, and a hidden will which determined who should be given faith in order to believe in Christ's atonement and be saved.

If unbelief is a sin, and Christ died for all sins, that means not even unbelief is left-over for God to be angry with.

If Christ died for all sins except the sin of unbelief, then nobody will be saved, because all Christians, before salvation, were unbelievers, and Christ didn't atone for that particular sin.

Logically, I cannot see an escape to this dilemma. And neither did John Owen. If you haven't, I urge you to read his book The Death of Death

 

[hedrick]

It makes sense both to say that Christ died for everyone and that he died only for his people. Without his death, everyone is hopeless. With his death, salvation is open to everyone. Whether they take it or not is up to them. That’s a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, which looks at things not in terms of God’s plan but human actions.

It is also legitimate to say that Christ died for the people that God gave to him.

It’s just different view of what it means to say that Christ died for us, from our perspective and the other from the perspective of God’s plan.

 

[Edward65]

If unbelief is a sin, and Christ died for all sins, that means not even unbelief is left-over for God to be angry with.

If Christ died for all sins except the sin of unbelief, then nobody will be saved, because all Christians, before salvation, were unbelievers, and Christ didn't atone for that particular sin.

Logically, I cannot see an escape to this dilemma. And neither did John Owen. If you haven't, I urge you to read his book The Death of Death

One needs to distinguish between past unbelief and present unbelief. Christ has atoned for past unbelief but if one persists in remaining unbelieving in the present and future then that can't be atoned for since salvation is dependent on having faith and believing the Gospel.

Forgiveness has been provided for all through Christ's atonement but it needs to be distributed before it becomes a reality. I suppose a comparison would be food aid in times of famine. Unless the food is distributed to all who are lacking it there's still going to be people dieing from hunger even though there's enough food for them in the pipeline. Applying this to Christ's atonement - Christ has died for the sins of the world but unless people accept this they will die in their sins. So if people reject Christ's atonement though refusing to believe it then Christ's atonement doesn't become a reality in their lives, and they still die in their sins.

 

[Edward65]

It makes sense both to say that Christ died for everyone and that he died only for his people. Without his death, everyone is hopeless. With his death, salvation is open to everyone. Whether they take it or not is up to them. That’s a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, which looks at things not in terms of God’s plan but human actions.

It is also legitimate to say that Christ died for the people that God gave to him.

It’s just different view of what it means to say that Christ died for us, from our perspective and the other from the perspective of God’s plan.

When you say "With his death, salvation is open to everyone. Whether they take it or not is up to them" what you're describing of course is universal atonement. The limited atonement view would mean that salvation isn't open to everyone but only open to the elect.

I think the analogy of the ship of faith on a sea of unbelief is a useful way of looking at the difference between the two. Universal atonement is equivalent to a boat big enough to take everyone, even those who don't go on board and drown in the sea, whereas limited atonement is equivalent to a small boat only capable of taking on board those who have their names on the passenger list. The ones who drown in the sea therefore, in this case, die because there isn't enough room for them on the boat, whereas those who die when the boat is big enough for everyone, do so because they didn't go on board. I think it's implicit in Christ saying to people that their faith had saved them that His atonement covers everyone and that they've as it were gone on board the ship which is big enough to carry everyone. If Christ had only atoned for the elect then I don't think he would have said to people that their faith had saved them. More likely He would have said something to the effect that his death will save them.

 

[Skala]

Christ has died for the sins of the world but unless people accept this they will die in their sins. So if people reject Christ's atonement though refusing to believe it then Christ's atonement doesn't become a reality in their lives, and they still die in their sins.[/SIZE]

This is the part that makes no sense to me. If I go to the bank and pay your mortgage for you, you don't have to 'accept it' (where is that language used in the Bible anyways?) for it to be a reality

If the mortgage is paid, it is paid. The bank doesn't wait for you to "accept" that it's been paid (mere mental assent to the fact??) for it to become a reality. If it's paid, it's paid. The bank can't keep sending you bills, because it's already paid for. This is the same as God continuing to punish someone for sins that Christ suffered for.

if Christ "paid for sins", they are paid for. Period. He suffered for their sins on the cross. If you suggest that a person goes to hell and suffers for those same sins again which were already punished in Christ, then that means God is demanding two payments for one debt. That is injustice.

 

[hedrick]

When you say "With his death, salvation is open to everyone. Whether they take it or not is up to them" what you're describing of course is universal atonement. The limited atonement view would mean that salvation isn't open to everyone but only open to the elect.

Right. The problem is that there are different ways to look at "open." There's nothing stopping anyone from believing other than their own decision. In that sense salvation is open to everyone. Calvinism (and Luther, at least early Luther) looks more carefully at what that decision is based on, and says that only those who God has regenerated can actually make the decision.In that sense salvation is open only to the elect.

The same issue is present with free will. Calvinists believe in free will, in some sense.

So I think from a Calvinist point of view (and I think Luther's) there is a sense in which Christ's death is truly available to everyone and a sense in which it is not. In fact I believe Calvinists and Arminians should agree on the first sense. Arminians do not seem to acknowledge, however, that on another level God determines who is saved, and thus Christ can reasonably be seen as saving only them.

However there is another issue. In addition to the fate of individuals, the NT presents Christ as having a universal scope. There are lots of examples, but the clearest is probably the defeat of Satan. Luke 10:18, Heb 2. Heb 2 is actually a difficult text. While it speaks of Christ as dying for everyone, and Satan as destroyed, it also seems to see the impact on the descendants of Abraham and “the children whom God has given you [Christ].” This only works if we see the destruction of Satan as metaphorical, since if Satan is actually destroyed, we're back in Eden. And I think we can agree that that's not our situation. Rather, his universal power is defeated, but that defeat is not yet completely implemented.

My reading of the NT is that Christ’s life, death, and resurrection had an actual, objective result for the whole world. Still, individuals can reject it for themselves. But the cosmic perspective suggests to me that people who reject God are fighting against what is now the nature of the universe. God doesn’t have to condemn them. They condemn themselves.

Although I think both interpretations are possible, I prefer to speak of the atonement as universal, because I think that reflects the cosmic perspective of the NT. But still, the fact that some people exclude themselves is part of God’s plan. That's classic 4-point Calvinism. That's the farthest I'm currently prepared to argue for. As I've noted elsewhere, I still consider open theism a live option (or perhaps semi-open theism, where God controls the overall picture but not all individual actions -- a model consistent with quantum mechanics).

This may well be more consistent with the Eastern view of things than one based on Augustine. The Western Church, following Augustine, as tended to see Christ’s work in terms of saving individuals from hell. It is based on a concept of pervasive sin that I have started thinking actually contradicts the NT picture of Jesus as victorious. The Eastern Church has tended to see the cosmic aspect of Christ, focusing on his victory over sin and death.

I think this diverges from the original question about Luther. As far as I can tell, Luther and Calvin both operated within an Augustinian perspective, then in discussion of the atonement, Calvin did at times seem to reflect something more Eastern. Here's a discussion of the evidence for Luther: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/02/martin-luther-teaching-on-limited.html. As you can see, there's some ambiguity, but he seems to have seen the universal implications of the atonement.

 

[Edward65]

This is the part that makes no sense to me. If I go to the bank and pay your mortgage for you, you don't have to 'accept it' (where is that language used in the Bible anyways?) for it to be a reality

If the mortgage is paid, it is paid. The bank doesn't wait for you to "accept" that it's been paid (mere mental assent to the fact??) for it to become a reality. If it's paid, it's paid. The bank can't keep sending you bills, because it's already paid for. This is the same as God continuing to punish someone for sins that Christ suffered for.

if Christ "paid for sins", they are paid for. Period. He suffered for their sins on the cross. If you suggest that a person goes to hell and suffers for those same sins again which were already punished in Christ, then that means God is demanding two payments for one debt. That is injustice.

I think your analogy of the mortgage being paid by someone else isn't strictly analagous to forgiveness and salvation because God has made it a requirement that one believes the Gospel in order to be saved. So this would mean in the example you give that the mortgage payment wouldn't leave the payer's bank account, although the payment had been authorised by the payer, until the payee had authorised his mortgage company to receive it - which in terms of salvation means he believes that Christ has paid for his sins. And this belief wouldn't be mere intellectual assent but geniune heart-felt faith and trust that Christ was his Saviour

 

[Skala]

I think your analogy of the mortgage being paid by someone else isn't strictly analagous to forgiveness and salvation because God has made it a requirement that one believes the Gospel in order to be saved.

Yes, faith is a requirement to be saved, but reformed theology believes that Christ's death actually secures the faith of the elect. In other words, it's because of His death for me that resulted in me inevitably coming to faith and being saved as a result. In yet more words, it means my coming to faith is predicated on what Christ did for me. the Holy Spirit applies to the elect all the benefits that Christ secured for them.

Based on this presupposition, it is impossible that Christ died for 'Bob' and bob yet remain unsaved, for the Bible teaches that God gives all things to the person that Christ died for (Rom 8:32) It also teaches that Christ went to the cross with the purpose of saving the elect. (John 17, Eph 5:25, etc)

 

[Edward65]

Yes, faith is a requirement to be saved, but reformed theology believes that Christ's death actually secures the faith of the elect. In other words, it's because of His death for me that resulted in me inevitably coming to faith and being saved as a result. In yet more words, it means my coming to faith is predicated on what Christ did for me. the Holy Spirit applies to the elect all the benefits that Christ secured for them.

Based on this presupposition, it is impossible that Christ died for 'Bob' and bob yet remain unsaved, for the Bible teaches that God gives all things to the person that Christ died for (Rom 8:32) It also teaches that Christ went to the cross with the purpose of saving the elect. (John 17, Eph 5:25, etc)

If it is impossible that Christ died for those who remain unsaved then why are unbelievers guilty of sin for not believing in Him? John 16:8,9 says: "And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me" and John 3:18 says: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (ESV). How can a person be condemned for not believing in a Saviour who isn't his Saviour but only the Saviour of others?

With respect to Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" it's clear from the context that Paul is only talking of the elect here when he says "all" and therefore it can't be used to support your view that that Christ only died for the elect, becase Paul isn't addressing all whom Christ died for, but only the elect who are regenerated.

Again John 17 and Eph 5:25 refers only to the elect but it doesn't follow from these verses that the extent of the atonement only covers the elect and not also the non-elect.

 

[Edward65]

Right. The problem is that there are different ways to look at "open." There's nothing stopping anyone from believing other than their own decision. In that sense salvation is open to everyone. Calvinism (and Luther, at least early Luther) looks more carefully at what that decision is based on, and says that only those who God has regenerated can actually make the decision.In that sense salvation is open only to the elect.

The same issue is present with free will. Calvinists believe in free will, in some sense.

So I think from a Calvinist point of view (and I think Luther's) there is a sense in which Christ's death is truly available to everyone and a sense in which it is not. In fact I believe Calvinists and Arminians should agree on the first sense. Arminians do not seem to acknowledge, however, that on another level God determines who is saved, and thus Christ can reasonably be seen as saving only them.

However there is another issue. In addition to the fate of individuals, the NT presents Christ as having a universal scope. There are lots of examples, but the clearest is probably the defeat of Satan. Luke 10:18, Heb 2. Heb 2 is actually a difficult text. While it speaks of Christ as dying for everyone, and Satan as destroyed, it also seems to see the impact on the descendants of Abraham and “the children whom God has given you [Christ].” This only works if we see the destruction of Satan as metaphorical, since if Satan is actually destroyed, we're back in Eden. And I think we can agree that that's not our situation. Rather, his universal power is defeated, but that defeat is not yet completely implemented.

My reading of the NT is that Christ’s life, death, and resurrection had an actual, objective result for the whole world. Still, individuals can reject it for themselves. But the cosmic perspective suggests to me that people who reject God are fighting against what is now the nature of the universe. God doesn’t have to condemn them. They condemn themselves.

Although I think both interpretations are possible, I prefer to speak of the atonement as universal, because I think that reflects the cosmic perspective of the NT. But still, the fact that some people exclude themselves is part of God’s plan. That's classic 4-point Calvinism. That's the farthest I'm currently prepared to argue for. As I've noted elsewhere, I still consider open theism a live option (or perhaps semi-open theism, where God controls the overall picture but not all individual actions -- a model consistent with quantum mechanics).

This may well be more consistent with the Eastern view of things than one based on Augustine. The Western Church, following Augustine, as tended to see Christ’s work in terms of saving individuals from hell. It is based on a concept of pervasive sin that I have started thinking actually contradicts the NT picture of Jesus as victorious. The Eastern Church has tended to see the cosmic aspect of Christ, focusing on his victory over sin and death.

I think this diverges from the original question about Luther. As far as I can tell, Luther and Calvin both operated within an Augustinian perspective, then in discussion of the atonement, Calvin did at times seem to reflect something more Eastern. Here's a discussion of the evidence for Luther: Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Martin Luther Teaching on Limited Atonement?. As you can see, there's some ambiguity, but he seems to have seen the universal implications of the atonement.

Yes I broadly agree with the blogger. Luther obviously did hold to a form of limited atonement in his early years but later he definitely believed in universal atonement. The youtube video, as the blogger said, doesn't represent Luther's later position, and he (Luther) did believe Christ's death had effected a change in God's relationship with the whole world not just the elect.

I've never really studied eastern orthodoxy so I can't really comment on them other than saying that my overall impression is that they've deviated significantly from Biblical teaching in a number of ways. The Bible does teach that Christ saves individuals from hell and that sin is pervasive, so I don't see that as a western interpretation, but rather as the truth. I don't see that there's any contradiction between Christ as the Saviour of individuals from hell and Christ as the cosmic victor over sin and death, unless you mean by this that sin is no longer pervasive because of Christ's victory - in which case I can't agree. Christ's victory hasn't yet appeared because the wicked world is still ongoing and the wheat hasn't been separated from the weeds, but as soon as the harvest comes the victory will be seen.

With respect to free-will Luther rejected this in The Bondage of the Will and contrasted it with absolute predestination. His argument was that since God predestines the course of the world - in particular who's saved and who's damned - there's no free-will to alter what God has from eternity decreed will happen. Luther specifically referred to Isaiah 46: 9,10 (for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’) to argue against Erasmus that there's no free-will and that God determines events, not man, so he (Luther) rejected open theism. I agree with Luther.