Martin Luther's Legacy: Reforming Reformation Theology for the 21st Century

6 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE 127 is supremely good and not disturbed. For God is so good that whatever He does by Himself is nothing but the highest delight and pleasure.116 In a sermon exhorting faith Luther claims, while comforting, that all evil in the world is the devil’s doing.117 Death is also portrayed as the work of the devil.118 These points are no more clearly asserted than when the devil is discussed in polemical treatises like The Bondage of the Will. There and elsewhere when trying to assert some contingency in line while still engaged in polemics Luther speaks of the human will as ridden either by God or Satan.119 The devil is even said to slay (a point made while defending God’s goodness).120 Viewing the devil as source of evil is also endorsed by Luther when describing faith.121 Reason rejects this, but it is more troubled if it did not believe that evil and suffering were the work of Satan and instead thought God had laid the evil on us. God is said to discipline us to show us love.122 Suffering is a means God uses to create (responding to our efforts to thwart God).123 This is a theme most suggestive of the Theology of the Cross (which emerges when we seek to thwart God with our efforts at saving ourselves). Luther even asserts that God can use the devil to work good.124 In contexts of exhortation or comfort from despair, God is said to be in a struggle with the tyrants of Satan (commitments that ft the Classic View of the Atonement to be discussed in two chapters). Such points are made when comforting despair over sin or the goodness of God.125 Likewise when preaching.126 While facing death, Luther claims that the devil causes pain and disease and causes depression.127 He is also said to cause insomnia.128 It is likewise claimed that Satan distorts our perceptions.129 While noting God’s struggle with evil Luther notes that God is not totally in control of things, that He sighs on account of us.130 However, Luther assures us when explicating the faith with some Christian life concern in view, the Word fghts the devil.131 He even notes that we are created to fght against the devil.132 But when dealing with Christian life and sloth, Luther claims that suffering is God’s Will.133 Christ is not always in control, for Luther (especially when not in polemical circumstances or when not comforting despair). But this viewpoints most in line with modern science’s awareness that in existence we

128 M. Ellingsen be permeated by one cosmic reality in order to hold together. But sideby-side this freedom, Luther insists in face of reason, doubts, and today’s Secularism that God is in total control. Again we encounter different emphases for different pastoral concerns. Notes 1. Dtsch.Kat., II.3, WA30 :191f., 36ff./ BC439.64. 2. Gen., WA43:233, 24f./ LW4:136: Nos Christiani scimus, quod apud Deum idem est creare et conservare.” Cf. Ibid., WA43:200, 15/ LW4:90; Som.Post. (1544), WA21:521, 21; Kl.Kat., II.1, WA30I :247f., 20ff./ BC354.2; Dtsch.Kat., I.1, WA30I :183f., 31ff./ BC432f.13, 19. 3. Gen., WA42:9, 11/ LW1:10; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:559, 17/ LW22:27. 4. Pred. (1523), WA12:441, 9. 5. Som.Post (1544), WA21:521, 21. 6. Dtsch.Kat., II.3, WA30I :191, 18/ BC439.61. 7. Gen., WA42:91, 18/ LW1:121; cf. Jon.,WA19:219, 12/ LW19:68. 8. Gen., WA42:71, 15/ LW1:93; Ab.Chr., WA26:502, 30/ LW37:362. 9. Gen., WA42:17, 15/ LW1:21–22. 10. TR (1539), WATR4:412f., 32ff./ LW54:358ff.; Gen., WA42:26, 29/ LW1:35. 11. Gen., WA42:20, 3/ LW1:25: “Igitur coelum, quod suo termino non potest consistere (est enim aqueum), consistit verbo Dei …” 12. Dtsch.Kat., II.1, WA30I :185, 24/ BC:433.24. 13. Gen., WA42:40, 32/ LW1:53. See Note 11, above. On the Higgs Boson (the so-called God-Particle), a hypothetical elementary particle which provides mass to particles that burrow through it, see Brian Greene, The Hidden Reality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011), pp. 63–65. 14. Kl. Proph., WA 13:547,22/ LW 20:4; Ibid., WA 13:618,2/ LW 20:84. Stuf., WA40III:154, 11; Kl.Kat., II.1, WA30I :222f., 10ff./ BC:354f.2ff.; Pred. (1537), WA45:222, 26. 15. TR (1532), WATR1:130, 22. 16. Gen., WA43:317, 39/ LW4:254; Ibid., WA43:68f., 10ff/ LW3:269f.; Pred. (1530), WA32: 117, 9. 17. Tr (1543), WATR5:552, 1: “Angelus est substantia creata spiritulis, quae est persona sine corpora, destinata ad ministerial coelestis ecclesiae.” 18. Krichpost.G., W211:1625.29/ CS3/1:114. 19. Wein., WA10I/1:382, 18/ CS1/1:259.

6 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE 129 20. Ibid., WA10I/1:420, 18/ CS1/1:287: “ … wie den alle menschen nitt umb yhrer wirdickeytt willen, szondernn auss lautter gottis gnaden angenehm und lieblich sind …” 21. Disp. Heid., WA1:354, 35/ LW31:41: “18. Amor Dei non invenit sed creat suum diligible, Amer hominis ft a suo dilogibili.” 22. Ibid., WA1:353, 21/ LW31:39: “4. Oper Dei, ut simper sint deformia malaque videantur, vere tamen sunt merita immortalia.” 23. 8.Ps., WA45:229ff., 35ff./ LW12:118–121. 24. Wort., WA23:132, 26/ LW37:57–58. 25. TR (1533), WATR3:301, 10/ LW54:200; Serm.Sak., WA19:496,11/ LW36:344–345. 26. Gen., WA42:37, 1ff./ LW1:49. 27. Serm.G.K., WA2:178, 29/ LW42:91. 28. Matt.5–7, WA32:404, 22/ LW21:126–127; cf. Hspost., W213II:2351.51/ CS6:427. 29. Gen., WA42:533, 2/ LW2:377; Ibid., WA44:66, 8/ LW6:89. 30. Dict. Ps., WA3:550, 33ff. 31. Serv.arb., WA18:615, 26/ LW33:37. 32. Ibid., WA18:693, 30ff./ LW33:151–152. 33. Ibid., WA18:720f., 28ff./ LW33:192–193. 34. See Albrecht Ritschl, “Geschichtliche Studien zur christlichen Lehre von Gott,” Geammelte Aufsatze (1896), pp. 65ff. This point is repudiated by Walther von Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, trans. Herbert Bouman (4th ed.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), p. 26. 35. Serv.arb., WA18:614ff., 27ff./ LW33:36–39; Rom., WA56:181f., 24ff./ LW25:162–163. 36. Serv.arb., WA18:615, 23/ LW33:38. 37. Ibid., WA18:617, 9/ LW33:40. 38. Assert.art., WA7:144f., 34ff.; Serv.arb., WA18:636, 23/ LW33:68; Ibid., WA18:615f., 31ff./ LW33:37–38. 39. Pred. (1523), WA12:442, 1; Ps., WA31I :450, 28/ LW14:129; cf. Gen., WA43:619, 22/ LW5: 276–277 (a point made while offering comfort). 40. Serv. Arb., WA18:614ff., 27ff./ LW33:36–42. 41. Ibid., WA18:714ff.,38ff./LW33:184–192; Ibid., WA18:618ff./ LW33:42– 43; Ibid., WA18:714, 13ff./ LW33:183. 42. Ibid., WA18:720, 31/ LW33:192–193; cf. Assert.art., WA7:146, 3. 43. Ibid., WA18:616,n.1/ LW33:39. 44. Ibid., WA18:709, 6/ LW33:175; Ibid., WA18:616,n.1/ LW33:39. 45. Ibid., WA18:754, 1/ LW33:242–243: “Sicut homo antequam creatur, ut sit homo, nihil facit aut conatur, quo fat creatura, Deinde factus et creatus nihil facit aut conatur, quo perseveret creatura, Sed untrunque ft sola voluntate onmipotentis virtutis et bonitatis Dei nos sine nobis … sed non

130 M. Ellingsen operator in nobis sine nobis ut quos ad hoc creavit et servavit, ut in nobis operaretur et nos ei cooperaremur, sive hoc fat extra regnum suum generali, omnipotentia, sive intra regnum suum singulari virtute spiritus sui.” Cf. Ibid., WA18:693, 30ff./ LW33:151–152. 46. 127.Ps., WA15:366f.,15ff./LW45:324ff.,: “Aber damit ist nicht zuverstehen, als verbote er zu erbeytten … Gott will die ehre haben, alls der allyne gibt alles gedeyen … Gott hat Adam gepotten, seyn brod zu essen ym schweys seines angesichets, und will, er soll erbeytten, Und on er beyt will er yhm nict geben.” Cf. Ps., WA31I :435ff., 7ff./ LW14:114f. 47. Serv.arb., WA18:720f., 28ff./ LW33:192–193. 48. Luther’s distinction closesly parallels the Scholastic distinction made by Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I,Q.19, Art.8, between the “necessity of consequence” and the “necessity of the thing consequent.” 49. Serv.arb., WA18:753, 36/ LW33:242: “Non disputamus, quid operatne Dei possimus, sed quid nos possimus, videlicet an iam creati ex nihilo aliquied nos faciamus vel conmur illo generali motu omniptentiae, ut paremur ad movam creaturam spiritus.” See Ch. 9 for a further elaboration of these points. 50. 127.Ps., WA15:373, 7/LW45:331; Deut., WA14:633, 13/ LW9:96; Ps., WA31I :436, 7/ LW14:114–115; Fast., WA17II:192, 28. 51. 127.Ps., WA15:373, 7; Ps.51, WA40II:417f., 33ff./ LW12:373. 52. Fast. (1525), WA17II:192, 28. 53. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:522, 11/ LW24:67. 54. Hspost., W213II:2323.17/ CS6:400. 55. Dtsch.Kat.,I.1, WA30I :136, 8/ BC389.26; cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I : 174f., 31ff./ LW26:95, as he calls creatures God’s masks. 56. Dtsch.Kat., I.4, WA30I :153, 29/ BC407.150. 57. Zach., WA23:511f., 33ff./ LW20:169, 170. 58. TR (1543), WATR5:17, 10/ LW54:400. 59. Gal. (1535), WA40I :173f., 9ff./ LW26:95. 60. Stuf., WA40III:209ff., 27ff; Ibid., WA40III:215, 20 61. Ps., WA31I :450f., 10ff./ LW14:128f. 62. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:535f., 16ff/ LW24:82–83. 63. Gen., WA44:572, 27/ LW7:366. 64. Pred. (1523), WA12:442, 1; Serv.arb., WA18:614, 22/ LW33:35; Ibid., WA18:709, 10/ LW33:175. 65. Ps., WA31I :436f., 28ff. /LW14:115: “Kriege du und lasse yn den sieg geben … Und so fort an ynn allen unserm thun Sol eus alles ynn und durch uns thun Und er allein die ehre davon haben … Nicht faul und műssig sein, auch nicht auff eigen erbert und thun sich verlassen, Sondern erbeiten und thun und doch alles von Gott allein gewarten.”

6 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE 131 66. Serv.arb., WA18:786, 5/ LW33:293. 67. Ibid., WA18:709, 19/ LW33:175. 68. Wein., WA10I/1:382, 20/ CS1/1:259. 69. See p. 70,nn.318ff. 70. Pred.Sol., WA20:121, 20. 71. Pred. (1523), WA12:442, 23: “Darumb stehet ein solcher glaubiger mensch ynn solcher freüd und fröligkeit, das er frych vor seiner creatur lesst erschrecken, yst aller dingen herr, unnd furcht sych allein vor Got, seynem herrn, der ym hymmel ist, funft furchtt er sych nichts von keynem ding.” 72. Hspost., W213II:1721, 2f./ CS5:344–345: “… lernen Gott vertrauen, das ser uns werede ernähren, und sich genügen lassen an dem, was Gott täglcih bescheret.” 73. Ibid., W213II:1724.10/ CS5:348: “Darum sollen wir uns genügen lassen, und nich ungeduldig warden noch mit Gott zürnen, ob wir schon nicht reich sind. Wo wir reich wären, möchten wir ärger werben und mehr sündigen.” 74. Serv.arb., WA18:615, 33/ LW33:38. 75. Jon., WA19:219,31/LW19:68: “Er ist allenthalben gegen wertig ym tod, ynn der hellen, mitten unter den feinden, ja auch ynn yhrem hertzen. Denn er hatts alles gemacht und regieret es auch alles, das es mus thun was er wil.” 76. 2.Ps., WA5:168, 1. 77. Pred. (1523), WA12:442, 23. 78. Hab., WA19:425, 23/ LW19:228. 79. Gen., WA43:371, 27/ LW4:326. 80. 1 Pet., WA12:374, 10/ LW30:119. 81. Rom., WA56:180,7/LW25:160–161; Ibid., WA56:401f., 30ff./ LW25: 391–392; 90.Ps., WA40III:518,13/LW13:97; TR (1532), WATR1:106, 16/ LW54:34. Pred.2.Mos., WA16:143, 4 (addressing challenges to Paul); Ps.51, WA40II:417, 18. 82. 90.Ps., WA40III :516ff., 25ff. . 83. Serv.arb., WA18:685, 21/ LW33:140. 84. Ps.117, WA31I :249, 25f./ LW14:31: “… Got kan nicht Got sein. Er mus zuvor ein Teufel werden, und wir konnen nicht gen himel komen, wir mussen vorhin ynn helle faren …” 85. Fast. (1525), WA17II:203, 32f. 86. 90.Ps., WA40III:519, 3/ LW13:97; Ps.51, WA40II:416, 25/ LW12:374; Serv.arb., WA18: 709, 12/ LW33:175–176; Gal. (1535), WA40I :314, 15/ LW26:190. 87. Serv.arb., WA18:709, 28ff./ LW33:176.

132 M. Ellingsen 88. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:638,6ff./LW24:195; Pred.Deut. (1529), WA28:661, 23; Ps., WA31I : 169, 29/ LW14:94. 89. Pred.2.Mose., WA16:143,4; cf. TR (1532), WATR1:106, 16/ LW54:34; Serv.arb.,WA18: 709f., 12ff./ LW33:175–177. 90. BR (1521), WABR2:335, 1/ LW48:219. 91. BR (1531), WABR6:103f., 14ff./ LW50:18. 92. Eel.Leb., WA10II:300, 5/ LW45:44. 93. Kr. Trk., WA30 :107–148/ LW46:161–205. 94. Gen., WA43:201f., 25ff./ LW4:92–94. 95. Serv.arb., WA18:635, 17/ LW33:65–66; Ibid., WA18:743, 32/ LW33:227; Ibid., WA18: 782, 30/ LW33:287–288. 96. Serv.arb., WA18:749f., 30ff./ LW33:236–237; Ibid., WA18:675, 34/ LW33:124; Ibid., WA18:679, 23/ LW33:130; Ibid., WA18:710, 8/ LW33:177; Ibid., WA18:743f., 27ff./ LW33:227; Ibid., WA18:762f., 36ff./ LW33:256. For perhaps stronger affrmation of God’s role in using the devil to work evil, see Rom., WA56:402, 16/ LW25:392; Ibid., WA56:179,27/LW25:160; cf. Ps.51, WA40III:519,18/ LW13:97. 97. Gen., WA42:17ff., 36ff./ LW1:22. 98. Gal. (1535), WA40I :314, 15/ LW26:190; TR (1533), WATR3:131, 6/ LW54:188. See Allan C. Kors and Edward Peters, Witchcraft in Europe 400–17000 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), pp. 262–263. 99. Stuf., WA40III:68, 30; TR (n.d.), WATR6:219, 30; Ibid., WATR6:215, 40ff. For the importance of the struggle with the devil in Luther’s life and thought, see Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbert (New York and London: Doubleday, 1992), esp.pp. 104–106; Harmannus Obendiek, Der Teufel bei Martin Luther (Berlin:Furche, 1931). 100. TR (1540), WATR4:642f., 36ff./ LW54:385. 101. Serv.arb., WA18:709/28/ LW33:176: “Hic vides Deum, cum in malis et per malos operator, mala quidem fere, Deum tamen non posse male facere, licet mala per malos faciat, quia ipse bonus male facere non postest … Vitium ergo est in instrumentis, quae ociosa Deus esse non sinit, quod mala funt, movente ipso Deo.” Cf. Ibid., WA18:711, 2ff./ LW33:178–179; Ibid., WA18:709f., 31ff./ LW33:176. 102. Ps.51, WA40II:416f., 32ff./ LW12:373–374. 103. Serv.arb., WA18:709, 34/ LW33:176: “Hinc ft quod impius non possit non semper errare et pecarre, quod raptu divinae potentiae motus ociari non sinitur, sed velit, cupiat, faciat taliter, quails ipse est.” 104. TR (1540), WATR4:639, 11/ LW54:384. 105. Kl.Proph., WA13:507, 25/ LW18:361.

6 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE 133 106. Tess.Con., WA6:128, 17/ LW42:156–157. 107. Kl.Proph., WA13:101, 18/ LW18:98. 108. Kl.Kat., III.6, WA30I :254, 12/ BC:358.18. 109. TR (1540), WATR4:642f., 34ff./ LW54:385–386; Serv.arb., WA18:712, 20/ LW33:180. 110. Stuf., WA40III:26, 30: Nam Deum cum bonus, sit, nihil potest dare, nisi quod bonum est.” Cf. Serv.arb., WA18:709, 23/ LW33:176. 111. Haus., WA52:473f., 33ff. 112. 1 Pet., WA12:369, 6/ LW30:114; Kirchpost.G., W211:1865.35/ CS3/ 1:358–359; Gen., WA42:574, 6/ LW3:35; Ps.2, WA40II:257:21/ LW12: 52; Pred.(1522), WA10III:194, 10; 90.Ps., WA40III:525, 4 / LW13:101; 2 Pet., WA14:70, 27/ LW30:196; Pred. (1532), WA36:349, 8. See Albert Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper,” Analendir Physik (1905): 891–921. 113. Serv.arb., WA33:753f., 39ff./ LW33:242–243. 114. See Ibid., WA18:709, 23/ LW33:176, quoted above. 115. Gen., WA42:512, 19/ LW2:350; Serv.arb., WA18:638, 1ff./ LW33:70; Ibid., WA18:662, 6/ LW33:103; Ibid., WA18:753, 12ff./ LW33:241f. See Ibid., WA18:638, 4/ LW33:70: Here he makes this affrmation only if we are willing to let free will go. 116. Dict. Ps., WA3:35, 7/ LW10:40: “Item sigulariter nontandum pro regula, quod multa dicuntur de deo in Scriptura, que ipse tamen non facit. Sed quia facit ea alios facere ideo Scriptura reducens intellectum nostrum in deum et docens gratiarum actionem et omnia fumina revocans in mare unde fuunt, attribuit ei, que faciunt creature. Ut illud: ‘Tunc loquetur ad eos in ira sua’ i.e. loqui faciet Chrisum et alios sanctus in ira sua: quia et ira seu vindicta, quam faciunt creature, sunt dei. Non enim ira sic est sua, quia in ipso sit. Sed quia creatura, in qua est ira, est eius et ipsius nutu et imperio affigit impios, ipse autem in se manens quietissimus et tranquillus, immo summe bonus et non turbatus. Nam tam est bonus deus, et quicquid ipse immediate agit, non sit nisi summum gaudium et delectatio et non affigit, sed magis refcit.” For a similar assessment, that the “dualistic” imagery enables more easily the affrmation of the picture of the God of love, insofar as it functioned as a kind of release for Luther, see Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (New York: Abingdon Press, 190), pp. 283–284. 117. Ev.Joh.14–15,WA45:527, 38/ LW24:73–74; Ev.Joh.16, WA46:77ff., 25ff./ LW24: 384ff. 118. TR (1532), WATR2:78, 22/ LW54:145–146. 119. Serv.arb., WA18:126, 23/ LW33:70; Himm.Proph., WA18:62f., 26ff./ LW40:80.

134 M. Ellingsen 120. TR (1532), WATR2:78, 22/ LW54:145–146. 121. Gal. (1535), WA40I :94, 16/ LW26:39–40; Wider Antinom., WA50:473, 34; Kl.Proph., WA13:89, 1/ LW18:79–80. 122. Haus., WA52:284f. 123. Magn., WA7:548, 12/ LW21:301. 124. Pred. (1531), WA34II:240, 25. 125. Rom., WA56:266, 17/ LW25:254; Ibid., WA56:257, 17/ LW25:244; Ibid., WA56:349, 15/ LW25:338. 126. Pred.Deut. (1529), WA28:527,21; Ps.2,WA40II:249f.,29ff./ LW12:46–47. 127. TR (1537), WATR3:390, 7/ LW54:227; Ibid. (1531), WATR1:404, 28/ LW54:15, 16. 128. Ibid. (1532), WATR2:132, 4. 129. Gal. (1535), WA40I :315,19/LW26:190–191, Ibid., WA40I :319f., 32ff./ LW26:194–195. 130. Pred. (1538), WA46:495, 31f. 131. Dtsch.Kat., Vor., WA30I :127.7/ BC381f., 12f. 132. Gen., WA42:56, 30/ LW1:74. 133. Serm.hoc.Sak., WA2:747,29/LW35:57; Gut.Wrk., WA6:248,1/ LW44:77; Ps., WA31I : 149, 32.

135 Though many Liberal Theologians have sought to portray Luther as a thinker who lets the human situation set his theological agenda and/ or to be dependent on Greek philosophy for his Anthropology, we fnd much evidence to undermine those assumptions. On the other hand, when it comes to his views on Sin his dependence on Augustine becomes readily evident. Human Nature Luther claims that we cannot really know the essential nature of human beings until we view ourselves in our source, Who is God—to be in relationship to Him. For we cannot do so on our own strength.1 Unlike philosophy, which defnes human beings in terms of qualities like reason and sensation, in Luther’s view, who we are as humans is determined by our relationships (with God), grounded in someone else, is even determined by our being justifed by faith.2 From this perspective, Luther notes that we are the pinnacle of creation and everything was created to serve us.3 But the Reformer condemns false pride about this.4 Luther generally embraced the Greek body–soul dualism. He was a Traducianist, claiming that the soul was created with the body in human procreation.5 Sometimes, when concerned with instruction in Christian life, he even opted for a triadic body–soul–spirit distinction.6 But in these and other instances he does not allow these Pauline conceptions to lapse CHAPTER 7 Human Nature, Sin, and Free Will © The Author(s) 2017 M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_7

136 M. Ellingsen into a dualism which renders the body as less good. In accord with modern critical thinking Luther notes that the fesh refers to lusts, to anything outside of grace, not to our physicality.7 While continuing to embrace the Greek body–soul dualism, the Reformer expressly distances himself and a biblical understanding from the concept of substance. “Scripture is not interested in the quiddities (essences) of things, but only in their qualities.” That is, the focus of personhood is not on the possession of things, but on what he or she has done over a lifetime. A person is what he or she does.8 On one occasion he even wondered whether soul and body really are separate things.9 Despite his critical view of reason in polemical contexts, when explicating faith’s logic (esp. regarding humanity), Luther said it was “divine,” praising its grandeur.10 He defnes reason as the power to understand and to judge.11 Reason can lead to knowledge of the moral law, Luther contended.12 Even after the Fall, reason directs us on temporal matters, he claimed. And it can also lead us to keep the natural law outwardly, to civic righteousness.13 We have already noted how he conceded that reason gives access to the natural knowledge of God. Humans are said to be rational animals with creative hearts. But, Luther adds, our reasoning is with a heart.14 The Reformer also believed that because we were created in open heaven, and sin is the reason we now live under roofs, it follows had Adam not fallen we would have lived in nakedness.15 Language is said to be God’s most precious gift.16 And language, he says, emerges from the heart.17 The ability to speak, he says elsewhere, is what makes humans unique.18 Luther also posits a relational view of human beings (that our substance is our qualities in action).19 The Reformer says that “God created human beings so that they could get along together in a friendly and peaceful way.”20 We are said to be persons like God in the sense of forgiving sin.21 The Reformer also speaks of the sense in which we have dominion: … I know that God does not give out His gifts so that we can rule and have power over others or so that we should spurn their opinion and judgment: rather so that we should serve those who are in such a case as to need our counsel and help.22

7 HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL 137 We were created, Luther argues, made in God’s likeness, in order to live forever with God in praise of Him. “Human beings know neither their beginning nor their end when they are without the Word.”23 And we are created for eternal life as well as to worship Him. Our hope of eternal life is identifed as one way of describing the image of God.24 In addition, Luther speaks of the image of God as righteousness or sinlessness.25 Reference is also made to reason and free will.26 Reason is said to be the image of God.27 The image of God is also identifed as being like God in having the ability to forgive and retain sins.28 Or the image is defned as living a life that knows God and loves Him; the image is lost in sin.29 Since sin and the image’s loss we cannot understand the image to any extent, Luther claims.30 Of course acknowledging the loss of the image of God in sin Luther does not want to imply that we are no longer human beings or no long God’s creatures. Thus he insisted that sin in not part of the human essence, does not defne who we are as God created us to be.31 Adam is said to have known God, according to Luther. The frst man is said to have been good and to have had had beautiful tranquility32 But, Luther insists, we never stop getting away from God, even in the midst of the nothingness of our sin and death: Where does a man who hopes in God end up, except in his own nothingness? But when a man goes into nothingness, does he not merely return to that from which he came? Since he comes from God and his own nonbeing, it is to God that he returns when he returns to nothingness. For even though a man falls out of himself and out of all creation, it is impossible for him to fall out of God’s hand, for all creation is surrounded by God’s hands … So run through the world; but where are you running? Always into the hand and lap of God.33 Sin pries us away from God intended for humans, a relationship with us. Sin and the Bondage of the Will Early in his career Luther spoke of human beings having a free choice in salvation, not just in ordinary matters.34 But usually he speaks of our being utterly mired in sin. Luther made this point prior to the Reformation. And then in another pre-Reformation lecture he added

138 M. Ellingsen that “Man cannot but seek his own advantages and love himself above all things.”35 As the Reformer put it in one of his lectures: The essence of man is sin.36 Sin destroys all our natural powers, Luther claims.37 All parts of the soul are weakened by it.38 Of course Luther still affrms the majesty of reason.39 But he recognizes in polemical contexts and discussions of sin or suffering that with sin, reason is trapped in the things of the world (even while claiming elsewhere while explicating texts that reason knows God).40 The very frst Thesis of The Ninety-Five Theses, that “the entire life of believers [is] to be one of repentance,” implies that we are ever in sin.41 The Reformer insists that we are inclined to do evil in all we do.42 Luther affrms Original Sin and that we are born in sin. In a 1532 lecture he explained how we are born in sin. Though marriage is good, the seed is of evil lust and hatred of God. There is no knowledge of God in sex, he claimed, but lust.43 He also claims that a bad seed can only bring forth bad fruit.44 Being born in sin does not necessarily entail a determinism in Luther’s view. As we have already noted, even late in his career he claimed that we maintain freedom in secular matters (things under us).45 He had made that point in The Bondage of the Will. 46 The root of sin is unbelief, the frst reformer claimed.47 Elsewhere he speaks of both unbelief and doubt as the source of sin.48 We “stink of pure self-esteem and self conceit,” he says.49 In one text he claims that there is no greater sin than unfaith50 When we stop being grateful, Luther believed that then we turn God into whom we want Him to be— an idol.51 Ingratitude is said to be robbery of God.52 Likewise pride.53 Nothing but pride, evil, lust, hate, and envy cling to my fesh.54 Sin is also evidenced in Luther’s thinking in that we never act without reluctance, and such reluctance impedes fulfllment of the Law. This is why no one is righteous.55 Luther claimed that by nature we want to be God, not let God be God.56 Original sin is primarily a broken relationship with God.57

7 HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL 139 Concupiscence Luther most characteristically defnes Sin as concupiscence; in theses contexts he contends that no act done according to nature is not an act of concupiscence.58 In claiming that sin is concupiscence, this entails for Luther that the passion, inclination, concupiscence itself and the inclination to sin are all sin itself.59 This concupiscence entails that we desire nothing “except that which is high and precious and that which brings honor …”60 This awareness causes depression (Anfechtung) which tortured Luther in the years before and even after his monastic vow.61 Every act is concupiscent, Luther claims.62 Sin is lodged in our hearts.63 We sin in all we do.64 Sin is said to remain after Baptism.65 We are eager for power over others.66 All we do is for our advantage.67 We seek ourselves in everything the Reformer asserts.68 We are such wicked louts that we never do more than what is necessary.69 Concupiscence makes us “crooked.”70 In another way Luther compellingly describes how sin traps us: Sin is at your throat; it drives you and lives heavy on you. Reason knows no other counsel and advice. As soon as reason sees that it has sinned, it declares: “I will reform and become pious! … At the same time you are too feeble to remove it …71 No act is done according to nature that is not an act of concupiscence against God.72 Although the Reformer treats concupiscence in this way when engaged in polemics or when preaching (exhorting faith), when offering comfort he compromises a bit by opting for a position more like Roman Catholic thinking. He relegates concupiscence to the status of merely being the tinder of sin, not sin unless we act on it.73 More typically, though, Luther observes that natural man does not want to be righteous for its own sake, but is determined “to earn something or escape something.”74 We do good for the sake of praise and honor.75 We are slaves to sin, if not in our works, with our concupiscence and inclination.76 Even our best works are marred by sin.77 Our holiness is just dung and flth.78 The works of man may seem attractive and good, Luther observes. We are capable of civic righteousness, of deeds that seem proper in the political public realm.79 But even these actions are likely mortal sins.80 Every sin is a mortal sin.81 These commitments entail rejecting the Scholastic

140 M. Ellingsen distinction between mortal sins and venial sins.82 The most righteous of works are not righteous.83 Therefore we are unable to do good.84 Even in our humility we become proud of it.85 Our righteousness is nothing but unrighteousness.86 For Luther, works do not justify any more than a monkey who might imitate certain human actions can be said to do good deeds. These deeds would only be human if perpetrated by a human being, only those whom God made righteous can do righteous deeds.87 This is all the more dangerous because we try to run from an acknowledgment of sin.88 Luther observes that we love ourselves above all things, seeking our own advantage and to please ourselves in all we do. That is why all our good works are mortal sins.89 We are caught up in our selfshness.90 We can do nothing but sin.91 We are curved in on ourselves: The reason is that our nature has been so deeply curved in upon itself because of the viciousness of original sin that it not only turns the fnest gifts of God in upon itself and enjoys them (as is evident in the case of legalists and hypocrites), indeed it even uses God Himself to achieve these aims, but it also seems to be ignorant of the very fact that in acting so iniquitously, so perversely, and in such a depraved way, it is even seeking God for its own sake.92 The Reformer correctly notes how we love what pleases us.93 Everyone wants to get more than he has. We are all greedy.94 We turn things around, serving food and clothes, and not having them serve us.95 We seek the honor and favor of the world.96 Nothing really helps. Life leaves us discontent: “When things come fowing in, boredom soon takes over; if they do not fow in, there is an insatiable desire to have them, and there is no peace.”97 God gets used as our meal ticket.98 We are so messed up that even when we feel God’s Presence and gifts in our lives we soon forget it. Luther writes: For we know from experience that God has us under His regimen who, no matter how God tests them …. forget about it almost immediately. The condition of the human heart is so desperately wicked that it immediately forgets what is past and keeps on badgering God to provide novel miracles and punishments when we ought to be stouthearted and remember His blessings; but they immediately forget His benefactions.99

7 HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL 141 We always seek ourselves: For man cannot but be seeking his own advantages and love himself above all things. And this is the sum of all his iniquities. Hence even in good things and virtues men seek themselves, that is, they seek to please themselves and applaud themselves … I say now that no one should doubt that all our good works are mortal sins if they are judged according to God’s judgment and severity and not accepted as good by grace alone.100 We always want to do what is forbidden.101 The Reformer adds: 28. The love of God does not fnd, but creates that which is pleasing to it. [But] The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.102 Luther defnes the fesh as egoism and being turned in on ourselves.103 In Bondage The Reformer teaches that we are held captive by sin (for, as noted, we sin in all we do).104 It always remains.105 We are in sin until the end of life.106 Free will is said to be at its worst when it is at its best. “The more it tries the worse it becomes and acts.”107 Sin is inescapable; free will denied.108 We are always sinning in all we do. This is why free will exists in name only.109 About our situation Luther observes: This is the truth, what the world is; it is a stable of wicked, shameful people who misuse all creatures of God in the most disgraceful manner, who blaspheme God and infict everything evil on Him. These shameful people God loves.110 As he puts it elsewhere: The world is like a drunken peasant. If you life him into the saddle on one side, he will fall off on the other. One can’t help him, no matter how one tries. He wants to be the devil.111 True, we are in bondage, but Luther insists that even then we do not sin involuntarily. Our wills ae exercised in sin.112

142 M. Ellingsen We do not want to believe we are sinners, do not fully recognize our sin.113 Human beings in general are under the illusion that they are “free, happy, unfettered, able, well, and alive.”114 Luther offers an excellent example of this unwillingness to hear about our sin: But if, when the pastor rebukes others, you say, “What a preacher he is, what a telling message he really gets across!” But when he fnds fault with you, you say “These clerics, don’t they ever talk about anyone else but me?”115 As a result we do not want to hear about grace: For as soon as people hear that their own efforts count for nothing, all is forgotten [regarding John 3:16]. They insist that they and their own method must remain aright.116 The deeper men sink into the slime of sin, the more secure and joyful they grow.117 These dynamics manifested themselves in Luther’s view in behavior in his time reminiscent of our own context: It has now gotten to the point where gross vice, drinking, and carousing are no longer regarded as disgrace, but intemperance and drunkenness must now go by the name of gaiety. And just as all vices have become virtues, including greed … it’s the going policy of the market …118 When we live this way the result is often a lack of excitement or gratitude towards Christ.119 The Reformer notes further: … he is a very rare person who confesses and believes he is a sinner … It is not a natural way.120 No matter how holy and righteous you are, beware of even relying on the Lord by means of yourself or your righteousness.121 People would gladly believe in Christ if this could make them lords or confer kingdoms on them … Fidelity to Christ’s doctrine is rare, especially when people encounter an evil wind.122

7 HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL 143 Luther observes that anyone who boasts of his goodness and despises others is no better than they are. In God’s Presence we should just be glad we can attain forgiveness.123 These leads him to observe: In other words, sin is always in us, but when the Law does not come, sin is for all practical purposes asleep. 124 God sees far more defects in us than we can ever see.125 Original sin is like a beard, which returns again and again, despite our shaving it: The original sin in a man is like his beard, which though shaved off today so that a man is very smooth around his mouth, yet grows again by tomorrow morning. As long as a man is alive, such growth of the hair and the beard does not stop. But when the shovel beats the ground on his grave, it stops. Just so original sin remains in us and bestirs itself as long as we live.126 We noted in the chapter on Providence that especially in polemical circumstances combating Pelagianism that Luther rejects free will.127 Obviously the nature of our fallen human condition entails this. We are all slaves to sin, all commit sin, even if not outwardly, but in our concupiscence.128 We are all sinners.129 The world, Luther says, is “a stable full of wicked, shameful people who misuse all creatures of God in the most disgraceful matter, who blaspheme God and infict everything evil on Him.” The amazing thing is that God loves these shameful people.130 Free will is shattered, Luther asserts.131 We have already noted that in his view it exists in name only.132 And when it does what it can it commits sin.133 It only leads to evil: As a result the will is neither sick, nor does it need the grace of God. All of this is based upon the stupid principle of free will – as if the free will could by its own power, chose to follow opposite paths, when it is prone only to evil.134 Most of the time the denial of free will is solely grounded in the doctrine of Sin. Only once, in his The Bondage of the Will, does Luther root it in divine omnipotence, implying that we have no freedom, that all is determined by God.135 To believe in free will, the Reformer asserts. makes

144 M. Ellingsen Christ useless.136 Free will calls into question our need of God’s grace, he notes.137 It leads to Pelagianism.138 Luther does not believe that our bondaged will due to Adam’s sin alleviates us for responsibility, for it is as if we fell in sin ourselves.139 On the other, though, we need to keep in mind the sense in which Luther believes that God works good through us (see previous Chapter). And we cannot understand free will unless it is adorned by God’s grace. Without grace we do not do God’s Will, but our own which is never good.140 Indeed, with some apocalyptic concerns in view, he concedes that this is free will, as long as the term just refers to an aptitude for the divine.141 Luther laments our fckleness.142 What a man has he despises; what he does not have he loves.143 In a sermon the Reformer develops this theme further and observes: … Nothing is remembered longer than an injury, and nothing is more quickly forgotten than a benefaction … It is characteristic of an evil nature always to remember an offense and always to upbraid and reproach one with things long past.144 Luther speaks of the world infested by wise acres and smart alecks exploring their own way to heaven.145 The Reformer adds: But those who want to amount to something and who seek glory and fame while they really amount to nothing, desecrate and dishonor His Name.146 We do things the wrong way, Luther claims: We are confdent before we sin and afraid after sinning.147 This fear associated is a despair (Anfechtung) which tortured Luther, setting the stage for The Tower Experience.148 Until the heart believes in God, it is impossible for it to rejoice in Him. When faith is lacking, man is flled with fear and gloom and is disposed to fee at the very mention, the mere thought of God.149 As we have already noted, we try to run away from this fear, and it is costly:150 Sin is not felt while it is being committed.151

7 HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL 145 Luther quotes the ancient German proverb: All men are pleased with what they do; a world of fools, I’m telling you.152 Reason seeks itself [concupiscence], not God, Luther adds.153 Reason is so blind that we cannot recognize sin without the Law.154 Apart from the Gospel we do not even desire the right things, Luther claims.155 In showing us our sin, the Law leads to despair, even of God’s mercy. The Law burdens our hearts. This is the Anfechtung Luther experienced. It exhausts us, makes us recalcitrant and self-centered.156 Indeed we even come to hate the Law.157 We would just as soon kill God if we could.158 We have already noted that when teaching bondage of the will Luther did not entirely reject free will in ordinary day-to-day tasks. He writes: That is, man should know that so far as his goods and possessions are concerned, he has the right to use, to act, or not to act according of his free will – although even this is overruled by the free will of God alone, just as He pleases. But over against God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, man has no free will but is a captive, is a subject and servant either of the Will of God or of the will of Satan.159 But the will is like a sword, Luther writes: A sword contributes nothing whatever towards its motion but is entirely passive; however, in inficting the wound it has through its motion cooperated with him who wielded it. Therefore just as a sword does not cooperate toward its willing. This willing is a motion which the divine Word produces. It is merely something that is done to the will.160 In a manner consistent with his teaching of Single Predestination (see Chap. 9), the Reformer claims, while arguing against the Catholic idea of cooperation with grace while seeking to assert a place for the will, that man is only free to place an obstacle in the path of grace.161 It is with a similar eye towards giving hope while undercutting free will or when describing threats to Christ’s rule of the Church that the Reformer claims that the human will is either ridden by God or Satan.162

146 M. Ellingsen Good News not Far Away Our sin makes life miserable and tragic, vanishing like a shadow.163 (Anfechtung is suggested by this observation.) This was probably related to Luther’s awareness of the fawed, imperfect character of his confession.164 Dealing with criticisms of his thought by Catholic princes at the Diet of Augsburg, Luther responded by claiming that “Where there is no sin there is no forgiveness …” Sin must be emphasized.165 Those who want to speak of Christ’s redemption must concede that they are prisoners of sin.166 The greater the iniquity, the greater the grace.167 As Luther put it, frst late in his career and then in his pre-Reformation lectures on Psalms: Therefore this manifold corruption of our nature should not be minimized … this should be emphasized I say, for the reason that unless the severity of the disease is correctly recognized, the cure is also not known or desired.168 The more you disparage yourself the more you praise God, and the more you displease yourself, the more He pleases you, and vice versa.169 He made a similar point in another lecture prior to the Reform: A true Christian must have no glory of his own and must to such an extent be stripped of everything he calls his own … Therefore we must in all things keep ourselves so humble as if we still had nothing of our own. We must wait for naked mercy of God Who will reckon us just and wise.170 The Anfechtung (despair) which awareness of sin produces is the experience of taking everything away. As a result, nothing is left but God.171 This accounts for why making sin great is inseparably connected with exalting God’s love.172 Sin humbles us in making us realize that we are no better than anyone else, Luther claims: This should serve … to break our pride and keep us humble. He has reserved to Himself this prerogative, that if anybody boasts of his goodness and despises others … he will fnd that he is not better than others, that in the Presence of God all men must humble themselves and be glad that they can attain forgiveness.173

7 HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL 147 For we never correctly praise God unless we frst disparage ourselves.174 It is our glory, therefore, to be worthless in our eyes and in the view of the world … In that extreme despair we hear You are precious in My eyes.175 Luther counsels us that an awareness of Sin makes grace sweeter Without Sin and guilt we would never know the great fullness of God’s mercy.176 Notes 1. Disp.hom., 17, WA39I :175, 36 / LW34:138; Serv.arb., WA18:662, 12/ LW33:103. 2. Disp.hom., 1ff., WA39I :175, 3ff./ LW34:137; Ibid., 32, WA39I :176, 34/ LW34:139; Gen., WA42:10, 36/ LW1:12. 3. Disp.hom., WA39I :176, 7/ LW34:138; cf. Dtsch.Kat., II.1, WA30I :184, 2/ BC432.13ff. 4. Pred. (1537), WA45:15, 7. 5. Thes. Antinom., WA39II:341, 21; Promodisp.Heg., WA39II:358f., 3ff.; Antinom.(1), WA39I :401, 4; Disp.hom., 21, WA39I :176, 7/LW34:138; Ibid., 15, WA39I :175, 32/LW34:138; TR (1540), WATR5:18, 12/ LW54:401; Kurz Vat., WA7:221, 18; Hspost., W213II:2743.27/CS7: 351. 6. Magn., WA7:550, 23/LW21:303. 7. Gal. (1519), WA2:509, 21/ LW27:249; Leip.Disp., WA2:415, 6; cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Vol.1, trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner’s Son, 1951), pp. 222, 239. 8. Dict. Ps., WA3:419f., 37ff./ LW10:356: “Quia Scriptura nihil curat quidditates rerum, sed qualitates tantum. Et hic qualiter unusquisque est et agit, secondum hoc habet substantiam: qua si caret, iam non subsistit.” 9. Promodisp.Pet., WA39II:354, 10. 10. Disp.hom., WA39I :175, 9/ LW34:137. 11. Gen., WA42:93, 37/ LW1:24. 12. Wein., WA10I/1:240, 7ff. /LW52:84 (when doing exhortation); Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46: 667, 24/ LW22:150f. (while explaining the logic of faith); Kirchpost.G., W211:1327.40/ CS2/2:158. 13. Wein., WA10I/1:531, 6; Konz., WA50:553, 14/ LW41:60 (while reporting history in the text); Disp.hom., 5, WA39I :175, 11/ LW34:137. On civic righteousness, see Gal. (1519), WA2:489f., 23ff./ LW27:219; Rom., WA56:235, 12/ LW25:220; Ibid., WA56:237, 4/ LW25:222; Gen., WA42:291f., 24ff./ LW2:42. 14. Gen., WA42:248, 38/ LW1:124. For natural knowledge of God, see p.50, nn.13–14; Gen., WA42:348, 38/ LW2:123.

148 M. Ellingsen 15. TR (1530), WATR1:574ff., 24ff. 16. TR (n.d.), WATR1:565, 22: “Inter omnia opera seu dona praestantissimum est loqui. Hoc enim solo opera homo differet ab omnibus animalibus.” Cf. TR (1543), WATR4:546, 11. 17. Dtsch.Kat., I.2, WA30I :139, 17/ BC:392.50. 18. Vor. O.T., WADB10I :100, 10/ LW35:254. 19. Dict. Ps., WA3:419, 25/ LW10:355. Also see p.49, n.7. 20. TR (n.d.), WATR6:266, 23: “Denn Gott hat die Menschen geschaffen, das man sich freundlich und friedlich in Zuchen und Ehren zusammen haben soll.” 21. Gen., WA42:10, 36/ LW1:12. 22. Gen., WA42:432, 13/LW2:239: “ …scio Deum sic distrbuere sua dona, non ut per ea dominemur aliis, aut contemnamus aliorum iudicia, sed ut serviamus iis, qui in ea re nostra habent opus opera.” Cf. Ibid., WA43:333, 28/ LW4:276. 23. Ibid., WA42:98, 26 /LW1:131: “Nam neque principiam nec fnem suum homines norunt, quando verbo carent …”. 24. Ibid., WA42:42, 5ff./ LW1:56f.; cf. Ibid., WA42:654, 23/ LW3:149; Ibid., WA42:63, 25/ LW1:84; Ibid., WA42:98, 11/ LW1:131. 25. Disp.just., WA39I :108, 5/ LW34:177; Gen., WA42:47, 8/ LW1:62–63. 26. Wein., WA10I/1:206f., 23ff./ LW52:60; Gen., WA42:64, 27/ LW1:84–85. 27. Gen., WA42:47, 33/ LW1:63; cf. Ibid., WA42:85, 10/ LW1:112. 28. Ibid., WA42:10, 36/ LW1:12. 29. Ibid., WA42:47f., 32ff. /LW1:63–64. 30. Ibid., WA42:46, 4 /LW1:61. 31. Ibid., WA42:124, 32/ LW1:166. 32. Ibid., WA42:47, 8/ LW1:62–63. 33. 2Ps., WA5:168, 1: “Quo enim perveniat, qui sperat in deum, nisi in sui nihilum? Quo autem abeat, qui abit in nihilum, nisi eo, unde venit? Venit autem ex deo et suo nihilo, quaere in deum redit, qui redit in nihilum. Neque enim extra manum dei quoque cadere potest, qui extra seipsum omnemque creaturam cadit, quam dei manus undique complecitur … Per mundum ergo rue, quo rues? Utique in manum et sinum dei.” 34. Dict.Ps., WA4:295, 19ff.: “Anima mea in minibus meis simper …. Anima mea est in potestate mea et in libertate arbitiri possum eam perdere vel salvare eligendovel reprobando legem tuam, q.d. licet ego sim liber ad utrunque, tamen legam tuam non sum oblitus. Et hec glosa melior est …”. 35. Rom., WA56:275, 11/ LW25:262; Ibid., WA56:237, 2f./ LW25:222: “Quia homo non potest nisi qua sua sint, quaere et se super omnia diligere.” Also see Ibid., WA56:289, 18/ LW25:276; Ibid., WA56:312, 6/ LW25:299; Ibid., WA56:321, 2/ LW25:308–309.

7 HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL 149 36. Ps.51, WA40II:327, 21/ LW12:310f. 37. Ibid., WA40II:323f., 32ff./ LW12:308–309. 38. Dict.Ps., WA3:285, 17/ LW. 39. Disp.hom., WA39I :175, 9/ LW34:137. 40. Stuf., WA40III:51, 8; Pred. (1525), WA17I :68, 20. Also see p.50, n.12. 41. Disp. indulg., 1, WA1:233, 10/ LW31:25: “1. Dominus et magister noster Iesus Christus dicendo ‘Penitentiam agit &c.’ omnem vitam fdelium penitentiam esse voluit.” Cf. Kirchpost.G., W211:692.33/ CS1/2:315; Ibid., W211:713.49/ CS1/2:340; Ibid., W211:719.61/ CS1/2:347. 42. Dict.Ps., WA3:212, 36/ LW10:177. 43. Ps., WA40II:381, 29/ LW12:348f.; cf. Sum., WA38:36, 25; Dict.Ps., WA3:288f., 37ff./ LW10:236. 44. Ps.51, WA40II:380, 25/LW12:348; Fest., WA17II:286, 9; Serv.arb., WA18:784, 5/ LW33:289–290. 45. Gen., WA42:64, 27/ LW1:84–85. 46. Serv. Arb., WA18:752.7/ LW33:240. 47. Gen., WA42:122, 12/ LW1:162; Ibid., WA42:111, 23/ LW1:148; Vor. N.T.,WADB7: 6, 32/ LW35:369; Antinom.(1), WA39I :404, 5. 48. Gen., WA42L112, 29/ LW1:149; Heb., WA57III:182, 5/ LW29:182; 49. Wein., WA10I/1:636, 11/ LW52:213. 50. Antinom.(3), WA39I :580, 13. 51. Rom., WA56:179, 11/ LW25:159–160; 2.Ps., WA31I :454, 13ff./ LW14:133. 52. Rom., WA56:12, 1/ LW25:10. 53. Ps.51, WA40II:325, 28/ LW12:309; Disp. Heid., WA1:358f., 36/ LW31:47. 54. Pred. (1525), WA17I :234, 15/ LW12:188: “ … aber gleichwol so fule ich noch ymerdar des feisches böse art und natur, da stickt in meienem feisch eitel ehre, böse, lust, hafs und neid.” 55. Leip.Disp., WA2:412f., 33ff.; cf. Heid.Disp., WA1:367, 28/ LW31:61; Res.Cath., WA7:760, 1. 56. Disp.Schol., WA1:225, 1/ LW31:10; Rom., WA56:376, 19/ LW25:366. 57. Vor. N.T., WADB7:6f., 32ff./ LW35:369. 58. Disp. Schol. Theol., WA1:225, 9/ LW31:10: “21. Non est in natura nisi actus concupiscentiae era deum.”õ Cf. Ibid., WA1:224, 22/ LW 319; Ibid., WA1:227, 14/ LW31:13; Ibid., WA1:227, 16, 22, 35, 37; / LW31:14; Ibid., WA1:228, 1, 22/ LW31:14, 15; Res., WA1:532, 20/ LW 31:86; Ibid., WA1:662, 17/ LW31:136; Disp.Ec., WA2:160, 33/ LW 31:317; Dict.Ps., WA 3:287, 22/ LW 10:235; Rom., WA56:321, 3/ LW25:309; Ibid., WA56:391, 20/ LW25:381; Dict.Ps., WA3:16, 12/ LW10:12; Ibid., WA3:538, 12/ LW11:21; Ibid., WA4:328, 13/ LW11:447; Ibid., WA4:151, 18/ LW11:301; Rom., WA56:367, 24/ LW25:357 (claiming we are slaves).

150 M. Ellingsen 59. Rom., WA56:276, 6/ LW25:259; cf. Ibid., WA56:275, 11ff/ LW25: 262; Ibid., WA56: 283, 15/ LW25:270; Disp.Just., WA39I :118, 7/ LW34: 186. 60. Kirchpost.G., W2: 11:444, 3/ CS2/1:33: “Denn das ist der Menschen Weisheit, dass sie nichts anderes sihet trachtet noch begehrt, den was ehrlich hoch und föstlich ist …”. 61. Ps.68, WA8:9, 4/ LW13:7; Kirchpost.G., W211:749, 3/ CS1/2:380; TR (1532), WATR1: 146, 121/ LW54:50; BR (1520), WABR2:171, 7/LW48: 174; cf. Vor.Lat., WA54:185, 21/ LW34:336–337. 62. Disp.Schol.Theolo., 21, WA1:225, 9/ LW31:10; cf. Uber., WA7:656, 18/ LW39:185. 63. 1 Pt., WA12:301, 19/ LW30:47. 64. Grnd., WA7:436f., 23ff./LW32:86; Ab.Chr., WA26:345, 32/ LW37: 233; Gut.Werk., WA6:244, 10/ LW44:72–73. 65. Rom., WA56:312, 4/ LW25:299; Ibid., WA56:273f., 10ff./ LW25:261; cf. Latom., WA8:101, 34/ LW32:220; Disp.just., WA39I :116f., 22ff./ LW34:185. 66. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:609, 19ff./ LW24:162. 67. Promodisp.Pall., WA39I :212, 12; Kirchpost.E., W212:107.14/ CS3/ 2:120; Ev.Joh. 16–20, WA28:371, 17/LW69:243; Wein., WA10I/1: 25f., 12ff.; Rom., WA56:178f., 27/ LW25:159; Gut.Werk., WA6:244, 10/LW44:72–73. 68. Disp.Heid, WA1:360, 27/ LW31:50. 69. Hspost., W213II:1576.7/ CS5:217. 70. Rom., WA56:305, 4/ LW25:292. 71. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:679f., 36ff./ LW22:165: “Es ist sűnde auff deinem halfe, die dringet und druckt, und Vernunfft kan da seinen andern rat noch lere geben, den sihet sie, das gefündiget hat, so spricht sie: ich wil mich bessern und from werden … den wo sie da bleiben, so bist due verdamet und verloren, den du bist zu schwach dazu, du kanst die sunde nicht uberwinden.” 72. Disp.Schol.Theol., WA1:225, 9/ LW31:10: “Non est in natura nisi actus concupiscentiae erga deum.” 73. Rom., WA56:353, 1ff./LW25:341–342; Council of Trent, Decree Concerning Original Sin (1546), 5. 74. Serm.dr.gut, WA7:804, 4/ LW44:241: “… sundern wil etwas damit vordienen oder empfihen …”. 75. Gut.Werk., WA6:221f., 30ff./ LW44:44. 76. Rom., WA56:353f., 1ff./ LW25:357. 77. Grnd., WA7:445, 17/ LW32:91; Ibid., WA7:433, 13ff./ LW32:83; Ibid., WA7:438, 7/ LW32:86–87; Dict.Ps., WA4:364, 15/ LW11:496. 78. Hspost., W213II:1431.7/ CS5:91.

7 HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL 151 79. Serv. Arb., WA18:765f., 40ff./ LW33:261; Ps.51, WA40II:389, 4ff./ LW12:354f; Antinom.(2), WA39I :459, 16; Ps.51, WA40II:455, 36/ LW12:400; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:309f., 33ff./ LW17:63; Rom., WA56:96, 12/ LW25:86; Ibid., WA56:418f., 27ff./ LW25:410. 80. Disp. Heid., 3, WA1:353, 19/ LW31:39. 81. Und beich., WA2:60, 19f. 82. Serm.Bu., WA2:721, 24/ LW35:20; Serm.poen., WA1:322, 33. 83. Serv.arb., WA18:767f., 31ff./ LW33:263–264. 84. Kirchpost.G., W211:1138.4/ CS2/1:397–398. 85. 2.Ps., WA5:564, 28. 86. Gal. (1535), WA40I :479, 23/ LW12:308. 87. Rom., WA56:248f., 24ff./ LW25:235. 88. Gen., WA42:126, 37/ LW1:169; Rom., WA56:314, 3/ LW25:301. 89. Rom., WA56:237, 2/ LW25:222. 90. Ibid., WA56:482, 24/ LW25:475. 91. Gem., WA42:290, 14/LW2:40. 92. Rom., WA56:304, 25/ LW25:291: “Ratio est, Quia Natura nostra vitio primi peccati tam profunda est in seipsam incura, vt non solum optima dona Dei sibi infectat ipsisque fruatur (vt patet in Iustitiariis et hipocritis) immo et ipso Deo vtatur ad illa consequenda, Verum etiam hoc ipsum ignoret, Quod tam inique, curue et praue onmia, etiam Deum, propter seipsam querat.” Cf. Ibid., WA56:356, 4/LW25:345; Ibid., WA56:482f., 24ff./ LW25: 475; Dict.Ps., WA3:212, 34/ LW. 93. Disp. Heid., 28, WA1:354, 34/ LW31:41. 94. Hspost., W213II:2364.1/ CS7:16. 95. Kirchpost.G., W211:1621.20f./ CS3/1:11. 96. Matt.5–7, WA32:408, 36/ LW21:132. 97. Pred.Sol., WA20:12, 10/ LW15:10: “Quando vult aliquis artifex esse feri, tum non adest, non est quies, donec adsit: adipiscens fastidit et expetit aliud.” 98. Magn., WA7:556, 25/ LW21:309. 99. Hspost., W213II:1492.3/ CS5:145: “Denn das sieht man in der Erfahrung, dass Gott unter seinem Regiment solche Leute hat, er thue ihnen wohl oder übel er stäupe sie oder gebe ihnen gute Worte, so ists bald vergessen. So ein schändlich Ding ists um eines Menschen Herz, dass es so balb eines Dinges vergisst und unsern Herrn Gott immerdar treibt, dass er stets heue Wunderzeichen und Strasen muss gehen lassen, sollen wir anders wacker sein und seiner Wohlthat gebenken, sonst wirds gar bald vergessen.” 100. Rom., WA56:237, 12/ LW25:222: “Quia homo non potest, nisi que sua sunt querere et se super omnia diligere. Que est summa omnium

152 M. Ellingsen vitiorum. Vnde et in bonis et virtutibus tales querunt seipsos, se. Vt sibi placeant et plaudant.” Cf. Grnd., WA7:445, 17/ LW32:91; Matt.5–7, WA32:410, 18/ LW21:134; Ibid., WA32:413, 24/ LW21:137; Rom., WA56:356, 6ff./ LW25:345. 101. TR (1542–1543), WATR5:219, 31/ LW54:448. 102. Disp.Heid., WA1:354, 35/ LW31:41: “28. Amor Dei non in verit sed creat suam diligibile, Amor hominis ft a suo diligibili.” 103. Rom., WA56:342f., 33ff./ LW25:331; Ibid., WA56:356, 4/ LW25:345. 104. Ibid., WA56:385, 15/ LW25:375; Serv.arb., WA18:709, 28/ LW33:176; Ibid., WA18: 636, 4/ LW33:67; Ibid., WA18:670, 19/ LW33:115. 105. Serm. (1514–1517), WA1:141, 15/ LW51:30. 106. Rom., WA56:220, 25/ LW25:308. 107. Serv.arb., WA18:760, 14/ LW33:252: “Quid igitur reliquum est, quam liberum arbitrium, dum optimum est, pessimum esse, et quo magis conatur, hoc peius feri et habere?” 108. Serv.arb., WA18:722, 4/LW33:194–195; Disp. Heid., 13–15, WA1:354, 5ff./ LW31:40; Serm. S.P.P., WA2:247, 15/ LW51:57. 109. Disp. Heid., WA1:354, 5/ LW31:40; Ibid., WA1:359, 23/ LW31:48; Grund., WA7:436f., 33ff./ LW32:86; Assert.art., WA7:142ff. But see how Luther qualifes this point in p.130, n.49. 110. Pred. (1532), WA36:181, 1/ WLS:821: “Das ists werlich. Mundus abutitur ingratissime omnibus creaturis et blasphemat deum und legt yhn alle plage an. Das ist dilectio incompehensibilis et maior igni …”. 111. TR (1533), WATR1:298, 9/ LW54:111: “Die welt ist wie ein trunker baur: hebt man in auff einer seht in fattel, so felt er zur andern wider herab. Man kan yhr nit helffen, man stelle sich, wie man wolle, sie will des Teuffels sein.” 112. Antinom.(1), WA39I :378f., 27ff..; Serv.arb., WA18:693, 28/ LW33:151–152. 113. Kirchpost.G., W211:712f.46f./ CS1/2:339; Promodips.Heg., WA39II: 366f., 7ff.; cf. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:122f., 41ff./ LW22:403. 114. Serv.arb., WA18:679, 23/ LW33:130: “Scriptura vero talem proponit hominem, qui non modo sit litagus, miser, captus, aeger mortuus, Sed qui addit, operante Satana principe suo, hanc miseriam caecitatis miseriis suis, ut se liberum, beatum, solutim, potentem, sanum vivum esse credat.” 115. Hspost., W213II:2726, 22/ CS7:336: “Aber das heisst nicht recht gehört, wenn der Pfarrherr andere Leute straft, dass du sagest: Das ist ein seiner Mann, er kann aus den Bünden (ausbündig) wohl predigen; wie geht er hindurch! wenn er aber dich angreift, das du sagest: Dass den Pfassen dies und jenes! hat er von niemand zu predigen, den von mir?” 116. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:94, 25/ LW22:371: “Es ist sich whohl druber zu verwundern, das eine solche bossheit in den menschen sein solle, das

7 HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL 153 sie ihre gute werck ohne grossen zorn und unwilligkeit nicht wegkwerssen konnen, do es ihnen doch lieb und angeneme sein soltle durch eine frembde hulsse und wolthatt selig zu werden.” 117. Haus., WA52:799:19: “Aber da sihet man an niemandt nasse augen, und geschicht, ne tieffer die menschen im schlam der sünden stecken, das sie so vil dest mer sicher und frölich sind …”. 118. Hspost., W213II:2129.7/ CS6:225: :Ists doch jetzt dahin gekommen, dass das grobe Laster Sausen und Schwelgen, nicht mehr für Schande gehalten wird, sondern Völlerei und Trunkenheit muss nun Fröhlichkeit heissen. Und gleichwie alle Laster sind zu Tugend geworden, also ists auch mit dem Geiz … dass wenn sie könnten auf dem Markte …”. 119. Ibid., W213II:2100.13/ CS6:199; Ibid., W213II:1875f.19ff./ CS5:473. 120. Rom., WA56:232f., 34ff./ LW25:217: “Vnde dixi, quam rarum et arduum sit peccatorem feri et hunc versum recte dicere et ex corde … Sed dicendum, Quis modus iste sit, quo hominem spiritualiter feri oportet peccatorem. Est enim non naturalis.” 121. Dict.Ps., WA3:56, 36/ LW10:68: “Quantumvis ergo sis sanctus et iustus, cave, unquam per te vel in tuer iustitia spenes in dominum.” 122. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:640, 11/ LW23:393: “Aber man woltte gern an Christum gleuben wen einer dadurch köndte zum Herrn werden und einer ein konigreich Erlangen mochte … Das gescheicht feltten, das man bleibet bey den lehre, wenn ein saurer windt wehet …”. 123. Dtsch.Kat., III.5, WA30I :207, 7/ BC:452.90. 124. Hspost., W213II:1951.13/ CS6:65: “Will also sagen: Sünde sit alwege in unss; aber weil das Gesetz nicht kommt, ist die Sünde gleich, als schliese sie …”. 125. Haus. (1544), WA52:293, 126. TR (1531), WATR1:60, 26: “… die Erbsunde in Menschen ware gleich wie eines Mannes Bart, welcher, ob er wol heute abgeschnitten würde, dass einer gar glatt ums Maul wäre, dennoch wűchse ihm der Bart des Morgens wieder. Solches Maschen der Här und Barts hörete nicht auf, dieweil ein Mensch lebte; wenn man aber mit der Schaufel zuschlägt, so hörets auf. Also bleibet der Erbsunde auch in uns und reget sich, deiweil wir leben …”. 127. Disp. Schol. Theol., 5, 6, WA1:224., 22/LW31:9; Serv.arb., WA18: 668f., 6ff./LW33:113-115; Ibid., WA18:757f., 18ff./ LW33:247ff. 128. Rom., WA56:367, 26/ LW25:357. 129. Hspost.,W213II:2163.2/ CS6:254. 130. Pred. (1532), WA36:181, 2: “Mundus abutitur ingratissime omnibus creaturis et blesphemat deum und legt yhn alle plage an. Das ist delectio incomprehensibilis et maior igni, quem vidit Mose, et infernali.”

154 M. Ellingsen 131. Serv.arb., WA18:615, 12/ LW33:37; Ibid., WA18:709ff., 5ff./ LW33: 175–183; Ibid., WA18:718, 31/ LW33:189; 1 Pet., WA12:262, 11/ LW30: 6 – specialized context of exhortation to Christian life. 132. See n.109, above (esp. Disp.Heid., 13–14, WA1:354, 5ff./ LW31:40). 133. Grnd., WA7:445, 31/ LW32:92. 134. Marginal Comments on Gabriel Biel (n.d.), text as esptablished by Leif Grane, Contra Gabrieliem: Luthers Auseiandersetzung mit Gabriel Biel in der Disputatio contra schoalsticam theologiam (Gyldendal: Aarhuus Stiftsbogtrykkerie, 1962), p. 359: “Et per consequens non est informa nec eget gratia dei. Onmia ista ex stulto fundamento precedent liberi arbitrii – quasi l. arb. Passit ex se ipso in utrumque oppositorum, cum solum ad malum sit pronum.” 135. Serv.arb., WA18:749f., 30ff./ LW33:236–237, is the exception, but even in this treatise at another point, addressing a different context, Luther claims that we still have freedom in ordinary matters (see previous chapter). 136. Ibid., WA18:777, 33/ LW33:279; Ibid., WA18:609, 15ff./ LW33:29. 137. Ibid., WA18:777, 28/ LW33:279; Ibid., WA18:644, 9/ LW33:77; Ibid., WA18:664, 1ff./ LW33:106–107. 138. Ibid., WA18:664, 14/ LW33:107. 139. Fest., WA17II:282, 14. 140. Serm.S.P.P., WA2:246f., 34ff./ LW51:57. 141. Serv.arb., WA18:636, 10/ LW33:67. 142. Hspost.,W213II:1493.6/ CS5:147. 143. Gal. (1535), WA40II:84, 15/ LW27:67. 144. Decem praecepta: Wittenbergens; predicate populo (1518), WA1:480, 24: “… Nihil tardius recordairi quam iniuriam, et nihil citius abolescere quam benefcium … At contra malae naturae ingenium, semper retinere offensam, semper exprobrare et obiicere diu practerita.” 145. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:584, 20/ LW22:56–57. 146. Ps., WA31I :424, 23/ LW13:384: “Welche aber auch etwas sein wollen und rhum odder namen suchen, so sie doch nichts sind, die entheiligen und unehren seinen namen …”. 147. Res., WA1:594, 19/ LW31:192. 148. Disp.indulg., 15, WA1:234, 5/ LW31:27; Res., WA1:557f., 33/ LW31:129; Serv.arb., WA18:719, 9/ LW33:190; TR(1531), WATR1:48f., 10ff./ LW54:16–17; Ibid., (1532), WATR3: 228, 24/ LW54:193; Ibid. (1539), WATR4:293, 4/ LW54:336; 2.Ps., WA5:210, 13. 149. Krichpost.E., W212:82, 2/ CS3/2:93: “Denn es ist nicht möglich, dass sichein Herz sollte in Gott freuen, das nicht zuvor an ihn glaubt. So nicht Glaube ist, das ist eitel Furcht, Flucht, Scheu und Traurigkeit, wenn nur Gottes gedacht oder genennet wird …” Cf. Ibid., W212:93.30/ CS3/2:106.

7 HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL 155 150. See n.117, above. 151. Gen., WA42:122, 26/ LW1:163: “Dum enim in actu est, non sentitur …”. 152. Sp.OT, WA48:10, 12/8: “Eim jeden gselt sein weise wol, Darumb die Welt ist Karren vol.” 153. Rom., WA56:355, 15/ LW25:344. 154. Serv.arb., WA18:766, 8/ LW33:261; Antinom.(1), WA39I :412, 1; Som. Post., WA10I/2:407, 20; Wein., WA10I/1:455, 5. 155. Kl. Proph., WA13:541, 16/ LW18:382. 156. Thes. Wel., WA39I :50, 24/ LW34:116; 2.Ps., WA5:556, 20ff.; Gen., WA44:617, 33/ LW8: 52. 157. 2.Ps., WA5:557, 10ff. 158. Antinom.(3), WA39I :560, 20; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:660, 20/ LW22:142; Antinom.(1), WA39I : 382, 14. 159. Serv.arb., WA18:638, 7/ LW33:70: “ … ut sciat sesse in suis facultatibus et possessionibus habere ius utendi, faciendi, omittendi pro libero arbitrio, licet et idipsum regatur solius Dei libero arbirtrio, quocunque illi placuerit. Caeterum erga Deum, vel in rebus, quae pertinent ad salutem vel damnationem, non habet liberum arbitrium sed captivus, subiectus et servus est vel voluntatitis Dei vel voluntatis Satanae.” 160. 2Ps., WA5:177, 21: “Voluntas vero incarnate seu in opus externum effusa recte potest dici cooperari et activitatem habere, sicut gladius in suo motu prorsus nihil agit, mere autem patitur. At in vulnere facto cooperatus per motum suum secanti per ipsum. Quare sicut gladius ad sui motum nihil cooperator, ita nec voluntas ad suum velle, qui est divini verbi motus, mera passio voluntatis …”. 161. Serm (1514–1517), WA1:32, 18ff. 162. Serv.arb., WA18:635, 17/ LW33:65–66; Att.Ann., WA38:545, 28. 163. 90.Ps., WA40III:573, 8/ LW13:128. 164. Verm.geist., WA30II:287, 13/ LW34:19, 336–337; Vor.Lat., WA54:185f., 21ff./ LW34:336–337. 165. Auff.Ed., WA30III:345, 8/ LW34:78: “Wo keine sunde ist, das ist kein vergbung …”. 166. Wein., WA10I/1:440f., 22ff./ LW52:143. 167. 1 Tim., WA26:24, 6/ LW28:245. 168. Gen., WA42:107, 5/ LW1:142: “Non itaque haec naturae multiplex corruption extenuanda sed magis amplifcanda … Amplifcanda, inquam, haec sunt propterea quod, nisi recte cognoscatur magnitude morbi, remedium quoque non congoscitur nec desideratur.” 169. Dict.Ps., WA4:172, 11/ LW11:316: “Tanto enim magis deum laudas, quanto magis to vituperas, et tanto magis ipse tibi placet, quanto magis tu fbi displaces, et econtra.”

156 M. Ellingsen 170. Rom., WA56:159, 4/ LW25:137: “Sed omnino Christianus verus ita debet nihil proprium habere, ita omnibus extus esse, vut gloriam et ignobilitatem idem ft Sciens, Quod Gloria sibi exhibita sibi … Idarco in istus omnibus sic oportet se habere in humilitate, quasi adjuc nihil habeat, et nudam misericordiam Dei expectare eum pro Iusto et sapiente reputantis.” 171. 2.Ps., WA5:165f., 39ff.;cf. Heb., WA57III:207, 21/ LW29:209. 172. Latom., WA8:114f., 36ff./ LW32:240. 173. Dtsch.Kat., III.5, WA30I :207, 7/ BC:452.90: “Solchs aber sol nu darzu dienen, das uns Gott den stoltz breche und ynn der demut halte. Denn er hat yhm für behalten das vorteil; ob yemand wolte auff seine fromkeit bochen und andere verachten, das er sich selbs ansehe und dis gebete fur augen stele, so wird er fnden, das er eben so from ist als die andern, und müssen alle fur Gott die feddern nidderschlagen und fro warden, das wir zu der vergebung kommen …”. 174. Dict.Ps., WA3:191, 3/ LW10:162; cf. Gen., WA42:107, 5/ LW1:142. 175. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:330, 28/ LW17:88: “Nostra gloria igitur est in nostris oculis et mundi aspecta vilescere … In illa desperaciona extrema audimus: “Tu es preciousus ante oculos meos.” 176. TR (1540), WATR4:643, 6.

157 Since the twentieth century, but even earlier, Luther Research has been torn by a dispute over whether Luther taught the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement (the belief that Christ’s death has redeemed us by paying the debt owed God for our sin) or whether that vision of the Atonement was rejected by the Reformer since it entails a legalistic model for understanding God’s Work.1 In fact, as we have observed in other disputes about Luther’s theology, both sides are right about the Reformer (at least in certain contexts). According to Luther Christ is not called Christ because He took Two Natures, but because of His offce as Savior. We do not yet have Christ, Luther though, if all we know about Him is that He is God and man.2 We transfer our sins to Christ, so now we see our sin in Him.3 As the Reformer put it: If our sins, therefore, rest upon Christ, we can be content; they are in the right place – just where they belong. Upon us they do not lie well; for we and all men, yes, and all creatures, are too weak to bear a single sin … Therefore let them remain upon Christ.4 While describing the works of Christ (and so the logic of faith) Christ is said to overcome sin, death, and hell for us.5 This image suggests the Classic View of the Atonement (the idea that, unlike the Satisfaction Theory, Christ has saved us by conquering the sin, evil, death, and Satan).6 With some concern to exhort faith, Luther also speaks of fghting the devil.7 CHAPTER 8 Atonement © The Author(s) 2017 M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_8

158 M. Ellingsen Mr. Devil, do not rage so. Just take it easy! For there is One Who is called Christ. In Him I believe. He has abrogated the Law, damned sin, abolished death, and destroyed hell. And He is your devil, you devil, because He has captured and conquered you, so that you cannot harm me any longer nor anyone else who believes in Him.8 While offering comfort Luther refers to Christ conquering death.9 He is also said to have “swallowed up and devoured death.10 Luther also speaks to Christ smothering death and even of God’s wrath as Christ’s enemy.11 Christ is said to catch Satan on a hook like a worm.12 Luther himself has very little to speculate about regarding the devil. He merely identifes Satan as “the insane idea of self-righteousness.”13 Even the Law is construed as an enemy of Christ.14 The wrath of God is also construed sometimes as an enemy.15 The Reformer also believed in witches.16 The Victory of Christ is made ours through Word and Sacrament, Luther claimed.17 For the Cross is hidden.18 Explicating the faith, the Reformer notes that the sufferings of Christ are the affictions of all the people.19 This awareness makes suffering more tolerable. Satisfaction Theory The Classic View was not Luther’s only way of construing the Atonement. It is true that when preaching Luther claims that there is no place for thinking about satisfaction in his thought.20 But this seems to be a contextual commitment. For contrary to some interpreters the Reformer also teaches in some contexts the Satisfaction Theory—the idea that Christ’s death satisfes the wrath of God. It appears especially when dealing with Christian life, being a pupil of the Law, or when Christian life is combined with a polemical concern.21 Against the sects but also with Christian life in view the Reformer wrote: In these words Paul gives a beautiful description of the priesthood and the work of Christ, which is to placate God to intercede and pray for sinners, to offer Himself as a sacrifce for their sins, and to redeem them … and offer Himself to God as a sacrifce for us miserable sinners to sanctify us forever.22

8 ATONEMENT 159 In a sermon exhorting love, Luther compellingly embraces the images of substitution: For how amazing it is that the Son of God becomes my Servant, that He humbles Himself so that He cumbers Himself with my misery, yes with the sin and death of the entire world! He says to me: “You are no longer a sinner, but I am your substitute. You have not sinned, but I have.” 23 In the same vein Luther claims: Whatever sins I, you and all of us have committed or may commit in the future, they are as much Christ’s own, as if He Himself had committed them.24 Christ is the greatest of all sinners: And all the prophets saw this, that Christ was to become the greatest thief, murderer, adulterer, robber, desecrator, blasphemer, etc. there has ever been anywhere in the world.25 Only Christ satisfes God’s wrath, the Reformer noted.26 In his 1517 Lectures On Hebrews, concerned with sacrifcial biblical images, Luther claims that “Christ appears before the face of God for us.”27 This image also suggests like the Satisfaction Theory that Christ placates God for us. Other Alternatives On a handful of occasions, when exhorting the Christian with a concern to affrm God’s love in face of despair, Luther speaks of Christ as an Example (exempel) (Third Use of the Law and Moral Infuence Theory).28 This vision of the Atonement entails that Christ’s example saves us insofar as we are to emulate Him and by this lifestyle be saved. The general consensus about the Reformer’s theology at this point is correct. The Reformer is very suspicious about this image. Christ’s role as Example is said to be of no avail without Christ on the Cross.29 It is obvious, then, that like the other doctrines thus far considered Luther employs different ways of depicting the doctrine we considered in different contexts (perhaps because the Bible teaches all of them). Thus it is not surprising that Luther brought several of these Atonement

160 M. Ellingsen models (the Classic View and Satisfaction Theory) together when explicating faith.30 Later in the book we’ll elaborate on how to hold the diversity together. It has a lot to do with the fact that they are all present in Scripture. Whom Is the Atonement for? Luther has a strong focus on believing that what Christ has done is for me (pro me), that … you believe this both of yourself and also of the elect, that Christ died and made satisfaction for your sins.31 He makes this point especially when exhorting faith, insisting that what Christ has done is for the elect and for me. Christ’s Work is just a not just a mere historical fact, but is life-changing. When exhorting faith or its logic, as we shall see, Luther posits that Christ’s Work creates a situation of salvation for all (Single Predestination) . He claims that “wherever the Word of the Gospel is, there is remission of sins.”32 It is for the whole world and so for us, Luther claims in polemical circumstances or when articulating faith’s logic.33 But when dialoguing with those who devalue Baptism or preaching he claims: Had Christ been crucifed a hundred thousand times and had nothing been said about it, what proft would the act of His being brought to the Cross have brought?34 When exhorting Christian life faith must be activated in order for Christ’s Atoning Work to do you any good. But in contexts where the logic of faith is being expounded or comfort offered, then His Work provides us with salvation (as long as we do not throw it away). Luther seems to teach this idea of salvation given to all even further in his exegesis of 1 Peter 3:19—which teaches that Christ preached to the spirits in heaven (presumably hell). Christ’s Descent into Hell Luther was open to Christ preaching to the dead, but does not support the affrmation in one lecture.35 In a 1527 sermon he claims that the affrmation of descent into hell entails that Christ went as deep as it

8 ATONEMENT 161 is possible to go to bring all things under His rule.36 But he was more open to this understanding of I Peter 3:19 later in his life.37 The Reformer prefers to interpret the text in terms of all time being one for God (those believing in their subsequent belief when in heaven).38 He was open to God imparting faith after death.39 The devil’s reign and power is said to be destroyed by Christ’s descent into hell. But it still holds unbelievers.40 Hell and the devil can no longer do harm for Christians, he proclaims.41 With Christ’s descent to hell and His Resurrection, the devil can be said to be benefcial for believers, Luther claims.42 The grave henceforth becomes a garden for the saints.43 We shall observe even more clearly in the next chapter that there is defnitely a universal thrust to grace on Luther’s grounds when he is not addressing polemics or exhorting Christian life. Closing Comments The Atonement is Good News for Luther: … it hurts the Lord to see that we weep at the sight of His suffering. He wants us to be glad, praise God, thank His grace, extol, glorify and confess Him; for through this journey we come into possession of the grace of God.44 Our nature is opposed to the function of power of Christ’s Passion … We must clearly transfer our sins from ourselves to Christ … Hence you must say: “I see my sin in Christ, therefore my sin is not mine but another’s. I see it in Christ.”45 The Passion is a testimony to Christ’s “tremendous love” (grosze liebe).46 It is hard to be an ingrate in face of the Atonement, Luther contends. If someone comes to your rescue, you would be a wretch not to feel grateful.47 Notes 1. A good example of this debate is evidenced in the dispute between Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor, trans. A. G. Herbert (London: S.P.C.K., 1931) and Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther.trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), pp. 218ff., earlier staged between Albrecht Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of Justifcation and Reconciliation, ed. and trans. H. R. Mackintosh and A.B.

162 M. Ellingsen Macaulay (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1900) and Theodosius Harnack, Luthers Theologie mit besonderer Beziehung auf seine Versohnungs- und Erlosungslehre (Erlangen: T. Blaesing, 1886), pp. 1–19. 2. Thes. Wel., WA39I :45f., 33ff./ LW34:110f.; Ex., WA16:217f., 10. 3. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:434, 4/ LW17:223. 4. Haus., WA52:738f., 39ff.: “Ligen nu dein Sünde auff Christo, so sey nur in deinem hertzen zu friden, sie ligen am richten art, da sie hyn gehören. Auff dir lagen sie nicht recht, den du und alle menschen, Ya alle Creatur sind zu schwach, das sie ein einige sünd föndten tragen … Darumb lass sie nur auff Christo ligen …” Cf. Leid.Christ., WA2:136–142/ LW42:7–14. 5. Kirchpost.G., W211:22.51/ CS 1/1:38–39; Kirchpost.E., W212:492.4/ CS4/1:196. 6. 1 Pet., WA12:284, 18/ LW30:29; Vor N.T., WADB6:8, 5; Gal. (1535), WA40I :356, 31/ LW26:224; Pred. (1541), WA49:252,14; Kl.Kat., III.2, WA30:295f., 29ff./BC355.4; Kirchpost.G, W2:11162f.73/ CS 1/1:286; Dtsch.Kat., II.2, WA30I :187, 5/ BC435.31; Rom., WA56:366, 3/ LW25:356; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:599, 7/ LW24:151; Hspost., W213II: 2011f.17ff./ CS 6:118–119; 1 Pet., WA12:268, 28/ LW30:13; Gal. (1535), WA40I :545,30/LW26:356; Pred. (1532/1534), WA36:590, 20/ LW28:139–140; Hspost., W213II:2013f., 22ff/ CS 6:121; Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:80f., 20ff./ LW22:355; Gal. (1535), WA40I :440f.,21ff./ LW26: 283; Ibid., WA40I :65,11/ LW26:21–22; 15.Kor., WA36:549, 14ff./ LW28:111; Fest., WA17II:292, 6ff.; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:556, 30/ LW22: 24; Gal. (1535), WA40I :441, 16/ LW26:282; Lied., WA35:424, 22/ LW53:220; Ibid., WA35:444,6/ LW53:257 (comforting in death). Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:599,10/ LW24:151; Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:85,12ff./ LW22:360; Lied. (1523), WA35:493f., / LW53:219f. 7. Rom., WA56:180,14/ LW25:161; Ibid., WA56:402, 13/ LW25:392; Gal. (1535), WA40I :34, 1ff./ LW27:145–146; Ibid., WA40I :441, 22/ LW26:282; Ibid., WA40I :50, 12/ LW26:10–11; Ibid., WA40I :97, 15/ LW26:41–42; Ibid., WA40I :131, 15/ LW26:65–66; Ibid., WA40I :317, 21ff./ LW26:192–193; Ibid., WA40I :320f, 25ff./ LW26:195–196; Ibid., WA40I :581f, 7/ LW26:381; Ibid., WA40II:61,29/ LW27:49; Ibid., WA40II:98f, 31ff./ LW27:78–79; Dtsch.Kat., II.2,WA30I : 186, 12/ BC:434.27; Ibid., III.3, WA30I :202f., 8ff./ BC:448f.65ff.; Dr.Sym., WA50:268, 15/LW34:209; 8.Ps., WA45:219, 24/ LW12:109; Ev.Joh. 16–20/ WA28:68, 14 Pred. (1525), WA17I :71, 18ff.; Gen., WA43:579f., 14ff./ LW5:218f.; Pred. (1522), WA10III:356, 17. 8. Gal.(1535), WA40I :276, 28/ LW26:162: “ … Domine diabole, noli sice saevire, sed moderate agito, Quia unus est qui vocatur Christus; In hunc Ego credo. In legem abrogavit, peccatum damnavit, mortem abolevit, infernum destruxit Estque, diabole, tuus Diabolus; nam te captivovit

8 ATONEMENT 163 et vinxit, ut mihi et omnibus credentibus in ipsum non possis amplius nocere.” 9. BR (1531), WABR6:104, 32; Ps.68, WA8:21, 24ff./ LW13:22. 10. Dtsch.Kat., II.2, WA30I :187, 6/ BC435:31 “den tod vershlungen and gefressen.” Cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I :440, 15/ LW26:281–282. 11. Serm. Bereit., WA2:689, 3/ LW42:104. For Christ conquering God’s wrath, see Gal. (1535), WA40 :440, 15/ LW26:281–282. 12. Pred. (1522), WA10III:100, 24. 13. Gal. (1535), WA40I :34, 19/ LW27:146: “Et tamen inter eos sic profecit Satan, id est iustitiae propriae furor, ut post omnes prophetas ipsum etiam flium Dei, sibi promissum Messiam, occiderent, eadem scilicet causa, quod docerent gratia Dei, non iustitia nostra hominess Deo placere.” 14. Hspost., W2:13II:2631f.13ff./ CS7:251; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:69, 8/ LW16:98. Gal. (1535), WA40I :565, 12/ LW26:370. 15. Gal. (1535), WA40I :440, 15/ LW26:281–282: “Sic Maledictioni quae est Divinia ira per totum orbem terrarium, idem certamen est cum Benedictione, hoc est, cum aeterna gratia ee misericordia Dei in Christo. Congreditur ergo Maledictio cum Benedictione et vult damnare et prorsus in nihilum redigere eam, sed non potest. Benedictio enim est divina et aeterna, ideo oportet ei Maledictionem cedere. Nam si Benedicio in Christo posset vinci, tum, vinceretur Deus ipse. Sed hoc est impossible.” Cf. Ibid., WA40I :130, 23/ LW26:65; Ibid., WA40I :552, 2/ LW26:361– 362; Haus., WA52:799, 5. 16. TR (1533), WATR3:131, 6/ LW54:188. 17. 15.Kor., WA36:685, 2/ LW28:206; cf. Gal. (1535), WA401:569, 25/ LW26:373, as Christ is said to conquer the Law so that He must be God. 18. 2.Ps., WA5:84, 40. 19. Gal. (1535), WA40II:171, 26/ LW27:134. 20. Som. Post. (Cruc.), WA21:251, 19. 21. Vor.O.T., WADB8:29,32/ LW35:247; Ibid., WADB8:27,3ff./ LW35:245; Pred. (1522), WA10III:49,8ff. / LW52:92; Rom., WA56:296,17/ LW25: 284; Wein.,WA10I/1:123f, 15ff./ CS3/2:162; Ibid., WA10I/1:12f., 5ff.; Ibid., WA10I/1:720, 3/ LW52:280; Pred.(1522), WA10III:49, 22/ LW51:92 (articulated while discoursing on taking the Eucharist); Ev.Joh. 1–2, WA46:683, 2/ LW22:169–170 (an exhortation to Christian life and polemics); Fest., WA17II:291, 4ff.; Pred. (1529), WA29:578f., 2ff; Dtsch. Kat., II.3, WA30I :187, 37/ BC435.37; Ps.51, WA40II:405, 26/ LW12: 365; Lied. (1524), WA35:453, 4/ LW53:254; Pred. (1525 [1535]), WA37: 59, 21 (addressing death and faith). Cf. Ps.2, WA40II:289, 26/ LW12:75. 22. Gal. (1535), WA40I :297f., 34ff./ LW26:177: “Et his verbis Paulus pulcherrime describit sacerdotum et offcia Christi. Ea sunt placare Deum,

164 M. Ellingsen intercedere et orare abrogavit veteres ceremonias et facit novas … Sacrifcium offert se deo pro nobis miseris paccatoribus, ut nos sanctifcaret in aeternumn.” Cf. Ess.53, WA40III:733, 1; Hspost., W213II:1785.35/CS5:402–403; Gal. (1519), WA2:563, 1ff./ LW27:328; Serm.Post. (Cruc.), WA22:389, 27; Pred. (1523), WA10III:49f.,25ff./ LW51:92 (dealing with Church and life issues); Heb., WA57III:49f.,35ff./ LW29:217 (Christian life context). Hspost., W213II:1808.11/ CS5:423; Ibid., W213II:1809f.14/ CS5:424. 23. Ev.Jon.1–2, WA46:681,1/LW22:166–167: “Denn was ists, das der Son Gottes mein knecht wird, und sich so seer nidriget, das er auch meinen jamer und sünde, ja der gantzen welt sünde und tod, auff seinen hals nemen und tragen solt und zu mir sprechen: du bist nicht mehr ein sünder, sondern Ich. Ich trit an deine stat, du hast nicht gesündiget, sondern ich …” 24. Gal. (1535), WA40I :435, 16/ LW26:278: “Quaecunque peccata Ego, Tu et nos onmes fecimus et in futurum facimus, tam propria sunt Christi, quam si ea ipse fecisset.” 25. Ibid., WA40I :433f.,26ff./ LW26:277: “Et hoc viderunt omnes Prophetae, quod Christus futurus esset omnium maximus latro, homicida, adulter, fur, sacrilegus, blasphemus, etc., quo nullus maior unquam in mundo fuerit …” 26. Haus., WA52:795, 5; Som.Post. (Cruc.), WA21:434f., 34ff.; Wein., WA10I/1:124ff.,20ff.; Ibid., WA10I/1:717,21/LW52:279; 1 Tim., WA26:37,27/ LW28:264; Pred. (1533–1534), Pred. (1533–1534), WA37:59, 21; Miss.Mess., WA8:519, 13/ LW36:177. 27. Heb., WA57III:215, 16/ LW29:217: “Christus apparuit vulture Dei pro nobis.” 28. Leid.Christ., WA2:141, 8/ LW42:13; Fast., WA17II:74, 15. 29. Ev. Joh.6–8, WA33:259, 1/ LW23:165. 30. Dtsch.Kat., II.2., WA30I :186f., 29ff./ BC: 434f.31; Heb., WA57III:54, 14. In contexts of exhorting faith with polemics in view the Reformer speaks of Christ satisfying the devil or the Law when employing the Classic View in Fest., WA17II:291, 4ff. and and Gal. (1535), WA40I :503, 19 / LW26:325. 31. Rom., WA56:370, 11/ LW25:360: Sic enim arbitrator Apostolus hominem Iustifcari per fdem’ (assertive de te ipso etiam, non tantum de electis credere, Quod Christus pro peccatis tuis mortus sit et satisfecit).” 32. 1 Tim., WA26:40, 27/ LW28:269: “Ergo in Euangelio est remission peccatorum.” Cf. Ev.Joh.20, WA46:41, 19/ LW24:343; I.Joh., WA20:638, 30/ LW30:237; Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:100,12/ LW22:377; Som.Post. (Cruc.), WA22:224, 27. 33. BR (1539), WABR10:239, 16; Thes.Wel., WA39I :49, 16/ LW34:115.

8 ATONEMENT 165 34. 1 Tim., WA26:40,10/LW28:268: “Si hundert tausent Christus crucifxi et nemo de eo dixisset, quid profuis set factum: traditum in crucera.” cf.Ep. 1.Joh., WA20:778, 3/ LW30:314; Himm.Proph., WA18:202f., 36ff./ LW40:146. 35. 1 Pet., WA12:367, 31/ LW30:113. 36. Pred. (1527), WA23:702, 12. 37. Gen., WA42:323, 11/ LW2:86. 38. 1 Pet., WA12:368f., 20ff./ LW30:114–115. 39. Send.Rech., WA 10III: 325, 3/ LW43:54; BR (1522), WABR2:422, 23/ LW48:361. 40. Torg., WA37:66, 29. 41. Ibid., WA37:66, 21. 42. Bet., WA10II:372f., 24ff./ LW43:27. 43. Torg., WA37:70., 33. 44. Haus. (1545), WA52:799, 11: “Darumb thut es demHerrn wehe, weyl sein leiden dahin gericht ist, das wir darumb solten weinen, Er will, das wir frölich sein, God loben, seyner gnade dancken, yn preysen, rhümen und bekennen sollen, Sintemal wir durch solchen gang zur gnade Gottes kommen, von sünden unnd dem tod ledig und Gottes liebe fnder sind worden.” 45. Jes. (1527–1530), WA312: 433f., 31/ LW17;223: “Nostra natura pugnat contra usum et vim passionis … ergo dic: Ego peccatum meum in Christo video, ergo peccatum meum non est meum, sed alienum, in Christo video.” 46. Hspost., W213II:1750.1/ CS5:372. 47. Ibid., W213II:1865f.,22/ CS5:473f.

167 One very consistent theme in Luther, uttered in several distinct pastoral contexts (though not when exhorting Christian life or defending his catholicity), is the centrality of the doctrine of Justifcation, the most important teaching in all of Christendom. The Reformer claims, For the issue [Justifcation] here is nothing trivial for Paul; it is the principal doctrine of Christianity. When this is recognized and held before one’s eyes, everything else seems vile and worthless. For what is Peter? What is Paul? What is an angel from heaven? What is all creation in comparison with the doctrine of justifcation? Therefore if you see this threatened or endangered, do not be afraid to stand up against Peter or an angel from heaven.1 The Reformer calls Justifcation “master and prince, lord, leader and judge of all kinds of teachings, which preserves and guides all churchly teaching and establishes our consciences before God.”2 It creates true theologians.3 It is the criterion by which all matters of doctrine and life are to be judged.4 Luther comes close to making this claim in a 1532 exposition of Psalm 51 as he claims that “the real subject of theology is the human being accused of sin and lost and God the One Who justifes and receives the sinful human being.”5 The Word of God’s love is a forge and furnace, he says.6 Indeed, one is properly called Christian, he says, because a Christian simply depends on Christ without all merits, his own righteousness, and without all works.7 CHAPTER 9 Justifcation © The Author(s) 2017 M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_9

168 M. Ellingsen Luther’s unequivocal commitment to defending this teaching, no matter the consequences of the welfare of others, surfaces most famously in his comments at the Diet of Worms.8 As he put it in a sermon, he would rather people say he preaches too sweetly and hinders works than that he failed to preach faith and failed to help timid consciences.9 We need this emphasis, he says, because justifcation is an elusive thing, frm in itself but something with which we fallen human beings struggle.10 No other article of faith is so threatened by the danger of false teaching.11 It is just so diffcult to believe that sinners can be justifed.12 What Luther said about preaching this doctrine may still be true today that “the common people sleep and cough when we preach the article of justifcation but prick up their ears at stories.”13 Besides, he added (in a comment relevant for today as it was in its own time), “how full the world is nowadays of false preachers and false saints, who fll the ears of the people with preaching good works.”14 We also observe the Reformer’s claim that the cross and suffering can easily be borne by those sharing justifying faith.15 Justifcation accomplishes its work, he claims, by killing all that pertains to human effort.16 For the sake of this concern “the person must be completely rejected.”17 In a 1533 entry in Table Talk he claimed that he could not countenance forgiveness of sin for one who is in error about this doctrine.18 He was willing to take this strong stand, because in his view Pelagianism is the one perennial error in history.19 Quite consistently throughout his career the Reformer oriented all his other teachings to this doctrine, for as we have observed to this juncture in the book, all his other theological formulations (at least when preaching, expounding the logic of faith, combating heresy, and comfort those in despair) logically entail that we are saved by grace alone and testify to God’s unconditional love. In nearly all cases, then, the Reformer teaches justifcation by grace alone, that it is a completed act which is totally a Work of God. Luther defnes grace in several related ways—God’s Presence,20 forgiveness of sins,21 imputation of righteousness,22 and God’s mercy.23 Another defnition employed is acceptance and favor, belonging to the category of relationship.24 These defnitions led him to break with Scholastic Theology, for Luther rejects its idea of grace as a quality of the soul or a habit.25 But prior to 1517 and even after the Reformation began there are notable exceptions, emerging in a familiar pattern. In his 1515–1516

9 JUSTIFICATION 169 Lectures On Romans, while dealing with questions of the Christian life, the Reformer writes: Therefore I prefer to think (as I did above) of the people who are in the middle between the ungodly Gentiles and the believing Gentiles, those who through some good action direct toward God as much as they were able earned grace which directed them farther, not as though this grace had been given to them because of such merit, because then it would not have been grace, but because they thus prepared their hearts to receive this grace as a gift.26 Elsewhere in the treatise when the Reformer deals with good deeds he refers again to “preparing” ourselves for grace.27 While addressing issues of holiness, he even spoke of humility or immersion in God’s Work as a precondition for grace.28 Sometimes like the earlier Scholastics and the Catholic reading of Augustine he taught that even the preparation was a work of grace, but not typically, as he more frequently spoke like Nominalists of our melting grace with an original movement of the will. Earlier in his First Lectures on Psalms, also in line with the Scholastic Theology of the day, he claimed that faith must be formed by love. Elsewhere he expressly taught that justifcation entails the cooperation of grace and works.29 And in the post-1517 Heidelberg Disputation he returns again to this Scholastic concept of “preparation for grace,” as he urges humility, much like he did in an earlier 1516 sermon: It is apparent that not despair, but rather hope, is preached when we are told that we are sinners. Such preaching concerning sin is a preparation for grace, or it is rather the recognition of sin and faith in such preaching.30 A sermon in 1522 or 1523 exhorting Christian life suggested that we must do something to get grace, as Luther claimed that “The Holy Spirit is given to none except to those who are in sorrow and fear.”31 In a comment made at table in the 1530 s while the temptations of Christian life were discussed Luther claimed, “Ah how large a part of righteousness is it to want to be righteous!” He even expressly refers to the need for preparation for grace in a context in 1529 lectures.32 The concept of preparation for grace was (still is) crucial for Roman Catholic conceptions of the doctrine of justifcation, as it is a way of incorporating works into justifcation, while still asserting the essential,

170 M. Ellingsen even primary role of grace in the process.33 Most of the time Luther broke with Scholastic thinking in renouncing a role for works in Justifcation. Even in his early work, notably in polemics, he rejected the idea of preparation for grace. We are always sinning when we do what is in us, he claimed.34 But even in his later years, when dealing with good works or speaking of suffering, we fnd an admission that we may earn merits, that we must be humble in order to experience grace, that “faith is indeed called a work in its place,” and elsewhere in such a context he calls it an act of the will which holds the Word.35 As we have already noted in Chaps. 5 and 7, when not concerned with legalistic abuses or when comforting those in despair and addressing sloth he speaks of faith as something we must do. We need it to grasp or apprehend Christ, he claims while explaining the nature of faith or exhorting it.36 In that sense we can say that Luther teaches salvation by faith in these contexts. Much of Luther’s rationale for critiquing Indulgences was related to his concern that their sale undermined Christian living.37 And in that context he spoke frequently of the need for repentance, which he claimed was what every doctrine of Christ was concerned about.38 Repentance, so central to The Ninety-Five Theses, functions in comments about Indulgences as a kind of preparation for grace.39 There is ambiguity about whether repentance is something we do. However, in other contexts, when critiquing pride, he claims that repentance is not our own doing, but a work of God’s Word.40 Repentance alone, he claims while exploring justifcation, does not justify.41 (But at least in a 1538 exposition of a Psalm, which also includes some attention to the Christian life, he does not rule out openness to repentance [works as playing a role in justifcation].42) Luther nicely summarized the difference between his characteristic Reformation treatment of Justifcation and the characteristic Catholic approach: But where they speak of love, we speak of faith.43 Faith receives the good; love gives the good.44 We will soon note, though, that the Reformer has less praise for faith in other contexts. The Scholastic concept of Justifcation with its concern to fnd a place encouraging works entails that we are in a process. Of course most of the

9 JUSTIFICATION 171 time the Reformer portrays Justifcation as a completed event. In a dispute about freedom from the Law he claims that the believer is already righteous and “sees himself and is in heaven.”45 In a 1522 Christmas sermon, the Reformer criticizes those occupied with works and claims that justifcation is experienced “immediately and not in process.”46 Yet we fnd instances in his Lectures on Romans when he spoke of justifcation as healing the sick and, as late as 1537, when dealing like the Scholastics did with matters pertaining to living the Christian life or apologetics, he could refer to Justifcation as something on the way, as a process in which the believer is engaged.47 Just two years earlier than that, when addressing issues of living the Christian life or testing an antinomianinclined student’s readiness for graduation he taught that justifcation is both complete and still lies ahead (is a process). In these cases he may have argued that God forgives us or declares us righteous in light of what we will become in the future.48 He actually was still drawing on the Scholastic distinction between frst and second grace in 1515–1516 when dealing with the issue of how we are to pray.49 And while defending The Ninety-Five Theses while dealing with matters related to the Christian life he claimed like Scholastics that sin is not imputed to us because of Christ and because we seek to destroy sin.50 Of course, especially but not just in his later years the Reformer repudiated Scholastic conceptuality, especially the concept of “preparation for grace” and the notion of faith as a habit. True preparation is God’s Work, he once claimed. But in most of these cases he was attempting to defend faith from distortions.51 And insofar as we have observed that the Reformer continued to use this images to some extent when dealing with apologetics or the nature of Christian life, it seems appropriate to conclude that the Reformer is teaching us lessons about the purpose for which these characteristic Roman Catholic themes may serve our ministry today, insights which can richly serve Catholic Luther Scholarship and ongoing Lutheran–Catholic conversations.52 Characteristic Reformation Images True enough, there is no one way that Luther depicts Justifcation. But when teaching grace alone he consistently embraces in similar contexts the insights of his Tower Experience, that we are saved by God’s external righteousness, that His righteousness makes us righteous. There is much debate among scholars as to the date of this life-changing experience,

172 M. Ellingsen whether it happened before or after Luther posted The Ninety-Five Theses. At least we know that as early as 1515 when addressing legalism in his Lectures on Romans he claims that, like in The Tower Experience, the righteousness of God is not something “by which He [God] is righteous in Himself but the righteousness by which we are made righteous in Him.”53 The Reformer well summarized these insights in 1545 (referring to events in the following quote which transpired after 1517, such as taking up again lectures on Psalms and post-1517 negotiations with the Pope after the Indulgence Controversy): … I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience … I did not believe that He was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God … There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of 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 justifes us by faith …54 In a 1522 sermon he says much the same: Carefully note this point: When you fnd the phrase “the righteousness of God” in Scripture, do not think that it means the essential inner righteousness of God, … otherwise you will be frightened by it. Know rather that according to the usage of Scripture it means the grace and mercy of God …55 These insights about the righteousness of God and the passivity we have in receiving it entail that there is no salvation by works. Faith and works are in tension; works outside of grace, even repentance, are evil.56 As Luther put it later in his career: “Then we do nothing and work nothing in order to obtain this righteousness? I reply: Nothing at all.”57 A core commitment of Luther at this point was to distinguish Christian righteousness from other forms of righteousness.58 As he put it in a later sermon explaining the logic of faith: So no one is not called Christian because he does much, but because he receives something from Christ, draws from Him and lets Christ only give to him. If one no longer receives anything from Christ, he is no longer a

9 JUSTIFICATION 173 Christian, so that the name Christian continues to be heard only on receiving, and not on giving and doing …59 And while polemicizing against Pelagianism he observed that “We do not become righteous by doing what is righteous, but being made righteous we carry out righteous acts.”60 Especially when undercutting works-righteousness, the righteousness God reckons to us is “alien,” not our own but conferred on us by God.61 As early as the First Lectures on Psalms, while explaining the logic of faith, Luther equates righteousness with faith.62 Later in his career he claimed that “To believe is to sprout righteousness.”63 But in the Psalms Lectures he refers to a passive, external righteousness early in his career while attacking works-righteousness.64 And he refers to the passive, alien righteousness of Christ when expositing faith or critiquing legalism.65 This of course entails that righteousness comes by grace or mercy.66 Sometimes, though rarely, Luther spoke of God counting, imputing, or reckoning (imputare or reputare) righteousness.67 This is signifcant in terms of sorting out Luther’s intellectual debts. Augustine used this Latin phrase (about imputing righteousness) and so did the Nominalists.68 Luther also speaks of Christ’s righteousness as our umbrella against the heat of God’s wrath.69 Or, also in polemical contexts the Reformer speaks of Christ’s righteousness as our shield.70 Linking our righteousness to God leads the Reformer in one setting to defne it as “nothing else than knowing God,” or as the knowledge of Christ.71 In Luther’s estimation, while addressing polemics with the Catholic Church, we are snatched outside ourselves, don’t need to depend on our own strength, and this gives more confdence.72 He said much the same in earlier lectures with a similar agenda, by contending that “man rather than sin is taken away”—is put in a new context.73 We need to be placed in a new context of righteousness in order to do righteous deeds. For works do not justify any more than a monkey imitating certain human actions can be said to be human. These deeds are human only if done by a human, and so only righteous if done by one made righteous by God.74 This entails that the Law is abrogated for the believer. But we are free from it only in the sense that it no longer condemns or accuses the faithful.75

174 M. Ellingsen In the background of these observations is the concept of the “blessed exchange,” the belief that in faith we receive all that Christ has (righteousness) and He takes on all we have (our sin).76 Saved by grace alone entails that there is no role for works in saving us, the Reformer insists.77 He states this point powerfully in a Christmas Sermon, claiming that Christ takes our births (under sinful condition) and absorbs them into His own: … every Christian may rejoice and glory in Christ’s birth as if he had himself been born of Mary.78 When merely explaining or defending faith, Luther does not force a choice between salvation by grace and by faith. He claims still early in his career that “through Christ” and “by faith” are joined together, though in early polemics he does prioritize the Word of God over faith.79 The belief that what Christ has done is really “for me” is an essential dimension of faith.80 The Reformer defnes grace as “God’s favor”, “the perpetual operation … by which we are captivated or moved.”81 Faith is said to presume the grace of God. It does not require knowledge, or certainty, but a free surrender to God.82 It is just the means for comprehending Christ’s divinity is seen or comprehended.83 It merely trusts in Christ’s mercy.84 Indeed He is said to be present in it (an affrmation most consistent with the Reformer’s Narrative hermeneutic).85 Faith is nothing more than trust, Luther claims when explaining the logic of Christian faith in his Small Catechism. 86 Indeed, he adds, while addressing a Scholastic critic, how saturated we are by sin in response to claims on behalf of free will that faith is powerful only because it rests on Christ.87 In a sermon on Pentecost outlining the logic of faith, Luther claims that faith is merely the hand that holds what God has given us.88 Elsewhere he claims that faith merely opens the sack and holds out its hand.89 It is just the dwelling place, while Christ is the real protector.90 While rejecting Pelagian concepts he asserts that faith is just a ring holding a pearl of great price.91 It is Christ and grace, not faith, that saves he says while proclaiming the logic of faith.92 When responding to Roman Catholic critiques he contended that “faith is not enough but only that faith which hides under the wings of Christ.”93 It does not rely

9 JUSTIFICATION 175 on itself, but only clings to Christ, the Reformer claims.94 This is the source of its power.95 We have already noted that Luther claims that faith just opens the sack and holds out its hand. It is just the ring that holds the gem. Thus faith is not what saves, it is not enough itself, but rather it is the treasure it holds that matters. It merely hides under the wings of Christ.96 These commitments entail that the strength of faith does not so much matter for Luther: It [weak faith] is like a man who has fallen in the middle of a stream. He catches the branch of a tree somehow to support himself above the water and be saved. So in the midst of sins, death, and anxieties, we too hold Christ with a weak faith. Yet this faith, tiny though it may be, still preserves us and rules over death and treads the devil and everything under foot.97 You can be saved with either a weak or a strong faith, he asserts. The Reformer spoke of two people each with money, one in a paper sack and the other in an iron chest. Either way, both possess the same treasure.98 Even a weak faith saves, he claims.99 But when moving to Christian life and not the logic of faith, or when offering comfort Luther suggests that a strong faith receives more, makes us gods.100 Faith and spirituality are not what saves. Luther writes: No one should rely on his own piety, but one should trust only in Christ’s righteousness and in everything Christ has.101 As he said against Anabaptist denials of infant baptism: It is not that the Word of God is greater and more important than faith, since faith builds and is founded on the Word of God rather than God’s Word on faith? Furthermore faith may waver and change, but God’s Word remains forever.102 Likewise religious regulations are of no help in attaining God’s favor, Luther adds.103 Indeed God in Christ keeps loving us no matter how weak our faith. Luther compares Christ’s love to the sun which “will not refuse to shine because I am lazy and would gladly sleep longer.” So Christ’s love keeps shining on the hard-hearted even when they do not want to see it.104

176 M. Ellingsen He writes in a sermon: Now it is true, the preaching of faith is very lovely and winsome, but coupled also with subtle and potential risk. For preaching about faith is preaching about grace … But if one were to preach faith, and not grace then people resort to their own works, and eventually they despair.105 Another sermon deems faith the result of the Power of God (His Work).106 The Word takes us captive.107 We do not seek God, Luther writes when preaching with polemics in view. “Rather He seeks you.” We only receive passively, like dry earth is shaded and protected.108 And once when preaching against works Luther says that to say that faith is man’s creation is as useless as foam and scum on bad beer.109 In other settings he makes related points, stating: Rather than seeking its own good, the love of God fows and forth and bestows good.110 Faith is a divine work in us which changes us and makes us to be born anew of God … O, it is a living busy, active mighty thing this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing works incessantly.111 When just presenting the Christian story as well as when critiquing Pelagian tendencies, faith is construed as a gift or work of God with which we do not cooperate.112 We are just passive.113 This opens the way for Predestination, which we will consider in closing. As noted, though, Luther is contextual in talking about faith. When exhorting faith he does not always contend that faith is God’s Work. And in a disputation doing apologetics he even concedes, as we have noted, that “faith may be called a work in its place.”114 When concerned with receiving Christ and how to live the Gospel, Luther spoke of faith as obedience or as what gives “permission” for the Gospel to work in us.115 Nevertheless, Luther insists that the Work of God does not reduce us to robots; it cordially lures us.116 Even insights about the need for grace are works of grace, Luther insists.117 That such faith justifes is evident in the case of infants, who have no works and yet are saved by Him.118 And so Luther observes: … the forgiveness of sins do not depend on our penance or worthiness … It is true you should be sorry for your sins; but to hold that this insures the certainty of the forgiveness of sins and confrms the work of the keys is to forsake the faith and to deny Christ.119

9 JUSTIFICATION 177 There is much debate about whether these insights were Augustinian as he and his followers have claimed.120 It is being argued by scholars that the Reformer’s core insights were his own creative interpretations and could not have been derived from the thought of the African Father.121 But in fact a quotation by Augustine makes clear the convergence between him and Luther (at least when they addressed similar contexts): … the “righteousness of God” – not whereby He is Himself righteous, but that with which He endows man when He justifes the ungodly …122 The dependence of Luther on Augustine for his insights about Justifcation can and has been proven further in other formats.123 Why It Matters The impact of the Reformation insights on Luther is well known. But it is wise to explore these points in order to appreciate the impact that dealing with the doctrine might have on faith and theology today. Luther comments on the certainty of salvation that these insights afford: 27. Now it is certain that Christ or the righteousness of Christ, since it is outside of us and foreign to us, cannot be laid hold of by works.124 He makes a similar point in 1535: This is the reason why our theology is certain: It snatches us away from ourselves and places us outside ourselves, so that we do not depend on our strength, conscience … but … on the Promise and Truth of God, which cannot deceive.125 We get out of ourselves and come to Christ.126 As Luther puts it elsewhere: Paul thus makes plain that many things transpire which tend to create in us anxiety, but we must not let them make us over-anxious; we must commit ourselves to God and implore His aid for our needs.127 In line with his Theology of the Cross and the need to posit a paradoxical relationship between God’s Word and experience or reason Luther notes: