James Swan
Puritan Board Freshman
I noticed a few Luther questions here that I would have loved to join in on, but alas, I'm a month or two too late.
Someone asked about Luther's view of the atonement and predestination. I've studied this topic over the years, and some of what I've come up with can be found here.
In regards though to the extent of the atonement:
In Luther’s early commentary on Romans he comments on “God will have all men saved” (1 Tim 2:4). He says that saying like this “must be understood only with respect to the elect” and that “Christ did not die for absolutely all.” From such comments it appears easy to conclude Luther taught limited atonement. Other than this pre-reformation comment, there is no other evidence that Luther maintained such a view throughout his life on the extent of the atonement. Luther would instead go on to say things like, “[Christ] helps not against one sin only, but against all my sin; and not against my sin only, but against the whole world's sin. He comes to take away not sickness only, but death; and not my death only, but the whole world's death.” For Luther, the revealed God did indeed die for the sins of every human being. Quotes similar to this are peppered throughout his later writings. For Luther, the Scriptures state that Christ died for all men and not all are saved. Nevertheless, Christ died for all men, and wants all men saved. Lutheran theologian Siegbert Becker explains his church followed this paradigm:
Someone else wondered about Luther's harsh language. Luther was not alone in his rough language, but he certainly appears to have used it a bit more than most in his polemical treatises. Roland Bainton though has observed, “The volume of coarseness, in his total output is slight. Detractors have sifted from the pitchblende of his ninety tomes a few pages of radioactive vulgarity.” But though small in percentage, it is there nonetheless and needs to be accounted for. Lest some think that Luther’s harsh language against the Jews was unique, his language against the Papacy was stronger, and his words against the Turks and false brethren were almost as strong.
Some think that illness and depression caused the “old” Luther to explode in violent harsh outbursts of profanity towards his enemies. It is a convenient explanation which locates the cause of his harsh polemics in unavoidable human frailty: senility, disease, and depression. But, a much more likely explanation is that put forth by Heiko Oberman. Oberman traces Luther’s harsh language as far back as sermon preached in 1515, thus proving the young Luther used the same type of speech as the old Luther. Most importantly, Oberman provides insight rather than psychological condemnation. He points out, “In the total historical context, …Luther’s scatology-permeated language has to be taken seriously as an expression of the painful battle fought body and soul against the Adversary, who threatens both flesh and spirit.” Luther’s rough language was therefore a weapon to use against the devil. “…[A]ll true Christians stand in a large anti-defamation league and are called upon to combat the God-awful, filthy adversary, using his own weapons and his own strategy: ‘Get lost Satan…” In other words, Luther used scatological language to fight against Satan. Since Luther felt Satan was the mastermind behind works-centered religions (like Judaism), Luther attacks those religions using Satan’s own weapons against him.
For Luther, his use of scatological language exposes the Devil, who has hidden himself in the papacy, behind the Turks, and in the theology of Judaism. Since it is the Last Days, Satan must be resisted with all one’s might: with as much energy and all the vehemence possible. By exposing Satan in these systems, Satan becomes enraged and fights harder against God. By fighting harder, the Last Day approaches quicker.
Someone asked about Luther's view of the atonement and predestination. I've studied this topic over the years, and some of what I've come up with can be found here.
In regards though to the extent of the atonement:
In Luther’s early commentary on Romans he comments on “God will have all men saved” (1 Tim 2:4). He says that saying like this “must be understood only with respect to the elect” and that “Christ did not die for absolutely all.” From such comments it appears easy to conclude Luther taught limited atonement. Other than this pre-reformation comment, there is no other evidence that Luther maintained such a view throughout his life on the extent of the atonement. Luther would instead go on to say things like, “[Christ] helps not against one sin only, but against all my sin; and not against my sin only, but against the whole world's sin. He comes to take away not sickness only, but death; and not my death only, but the whole world's death.” For Luther, the revealed God did indeed die for the sins of every human being. Quotes similar to this are peppered throughout his later writings. For Luther, the Scriptures state that Christ died for all men and not all are saved. Nevertheless, Christ died for all men, and wants all men saved. Lutheran theologian Siegbert Becker explains his church followed this paradigm:
Someone else wondered about Luther's harsh language. Luther was not alone in his rough language, but he certainly appears to have used it a bit more than most in his polemical treatises. Roland Bainton though has observed, “The volume of coarseness, in his total output is slight. Detractors have sifted from the pitchblende of his ninety tomes a few pages of radioactive vulgarity.” But though small in percentage, it is there nonetheless and needs to be accounted for. Lest some think that Luther’s harsh language against the Jews was unique, his language against the Papacy was stronger, and his words against the Turks and false brethren were almost as strong.
Some think that illness and depression caused the “old” Luther to explode in violent harsh outbursts of profanity towards his enemies. It is a convenient explanation which locates the cause of his harsh polemics in unavoidable human frailty: senility, disease, and depression. But, a much more likely explanation is that put forth by Heiko Oberman. Oberman traces Luther’s harsh language as far back as sermon preached in 1515, thus proving the young Luther used the same type of speech as the old Luther. Most importantly, Oberman provides insight rather than psychological condemnation. He points out, “In the total historical context, …Luther’s scatology-permeated language has to be taken seriously as an expression of the painful battle fought body and soul against the Adversary, who threatens both flesh and spirit.” Luther’s rough language was therefore a weapon to use against the devil. “…[A]ll true Christians stand in a large anti-defamation league and are called upon to combat the God-awful, filthy adversary, using his own weapons and his own strategy: ‘Get lost Satan…” In other words, Luther used scatological language to fight against Satan. Since Luther felt Satan was the mastermind behind works-centered religions (like Judaism), Luther attacks those religions using Satan’s own weapons against him.
For Luther, his use of scatological language exposes the Devil, who has hidden himself in the papacy, behind the Turks, and in the theology of Judaism. Since it is the Last Days, Satan must be resisted with all one’s might: with as much energy and all the vehemence possible. By exposing Satan in these systems, Satan becomes enraged and fights harder against God. By fighting harder, the Last Day approaches quicker.
