An Explanation of the Luther Chapter in my Book

Since the recent discussion has erupted over my book, some have attempted to see my Luther chapter as somehow an attempt to give an extensive treatment of Luther's doctrine of justification. This relies on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the book. I will explain the reasons why this chapter was written, and exactly what argument is being made.

The book is on the New Perspective on Paul's claims regarding historical theology. The two areas I am addressing are 1. The NPP view of Luther as a purely forensic theologian whose sole concern is the distinction between law and gospel, and 2. The claim that Augustine changed the church's reading on Paul as if the pre-Augustinian church was not concerned about individual salvation.

The first chapter in this volume is not intended to be an extensive treatment of Luther's theology, nor of his doctrine of justification. Rather, it is an attempt to argue that Luther held to a more multifaceted soteriology than he is often given credit for. Yes, Luther held to forensic justification, the imputation of righteousness, etc. However, that is not central to the argument of this chapter because that is a given. I am not asking if Luther's view is forensic, but if Luther's view is only forensic. I use Mannermaa to argue that there is an element of union with Christ inherent in Luther's theology of justification as expounded upon in his Galatians commentary. I do not consider myself as part of the New Finnish School of Luther interpretation, because I think they downplay the forensicism inherent in Luther's theology, and they tend not to make a careful enough distinction between the early and late Luther. I make the point in this chapter that the early Luther can often speak of justification as a process, and that he sometimes conflates justification and sanctification; the later Luther is more careful, as forensic language becomes more predominant in his thought. However, whatever issues the Finnish school has, they have brought an element of Luther's thought to the forefront which has often been neglected: union with Christ. For Luther, Christ is present in faith itself, and Christ is in a vital personal union with one who believes. Though this union is not identical to justification for Luther, they are intimately related concepts which should not be severed from one another. 

There has been a long debate in Pauline studies over whether the apostle's soteriology is forensic or participationist. Is it based on imputation of Christ's righteousness, or mystical participation in Christ? I am trying to show that in both Luther, and the fathers, this is a false dichotomy. For Luther, salvation includes legal terminology, imputed righteousness, etc. It also includes participation in Christ, and union with God. The legal aspects of Paul's soteriology are then shown to have been prominent in both Clement of Rome and the Epistle to Diognetus. The participationist motifs are prominent in both Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. 

The whole argument is that the manner in which the NPP has interpreted Paul is not in line with the earliest interpreters; the way in which Luther has interpreted Paul, however,  is consistent with Patristic exegesis. Though one would be wrong to label the fathers consistent Lutherans, the reading Luther has of Paul is more thoroughly grounded in Patristic exegesis and theology than is the NPP.

Lutheranism and Theosis

The book I am currently working on is an evaluation of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis from a Lutheran perspective. I make the argument that Lutherans can and should adopt a teaching of theosis, as it is taught in the fathers, Luther's writings, and our Confessions. The language may make us, as Lutherans, somewhat uneasy, but whatever terminology is utilized, the concept is one that is Biblical and catholic.

Theosis is defined by Norman Russel as "our restoration as persons to integrity and wholeness by participation in Christ through the Holy Spirit, in a process which is initiated in this world through our life of ecclesial communion and moral striving and finds ultimate fulfillment in our union with the Father—all within the broad context of the divine economy." (Fellow Workers With God, 21)

For the Eastern Orthodox Church, salvation is primarily viewed as participationist, focusing on Christ in us, rather than Christ for us. The Lutheran tradition has tended to promote a soteriology that is predominantly forensic in light of the legal approach taken to the doctrine of justification and the priority of Christ for us. These two conceptions need not be pitted against one another, as if soteriology needs to be either juridical or participationist. Both motifs are present in the writings of Paul, the early fathers, and Luther.

It is my contention that theosis is a helpful and needed approach to salvation, and should be seen as "Christification." The earliest fathers including Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Athanasius took a Christological approach to the concept of deification. this is apparent in Athanasius' formula that "God became man so that man might become god." God took a human nature upon himself, and consequently gives us various attributes of divinity including immortality, incorruptibility and righteousness. This is to be carefully distinguished from the concept of apotheosis which teaches that humans can actually become divine by nature. Later Eastern writers, stemming from the writings of Dionysius the Areopogite, place deification in philosophical categories rather than the more strictly Biblical and less speculative approach of Athanasius. This latter approach has been adopted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially by those in the Neo-Palamite school of thought. It is the earlier approach of Irenaeus and Athanasius which comports with a Christological and Biblically oriented theology, rather than Palamism.

Christification is not a replacement of forensic justification as some in the Finnish approach to Luther have argued, but it's a complimentary reality. The Lutheran scholastic tradition spoke of this concept under the phrase "mystical union." Adolf Hoenecke is particularly insightful on this subject in his Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics. He writes,

"The mystical union of the believers with God consists in that the triune God through the Holy Spirit essentially is graciously present in believers, through which those thus united with God not only blessedly rejoice and are filled with comfort and peace but are also made constantly more certain in grace, strengthened in sanctification, and preserved for eternal life." ELD III, 385

Along with forensic justification, through the imputed righteousness of Christ, God himself also dwells in his people. This divine indwelling is a real-ontic reality as opposed to the Ritschlian concept that it is a unity of will, rather than an actual ontological union. Through this divine indwelling, God grants grace, eternal life, and growth in holiness. Through this union, the believer is continually conformed to the image of Christ. Hoenecke also writes,

"According to these passages the essence of the mystical union is that God according to his substance in a miraculous way is close to the substance of humans and permeates their substance with his essence (Jn 17:21-23), and dwelling in the believers, he so works in them that they are filled with knowledge and all the fullness of God (Eph 3:17-19). When we describe the mystical union as the presence of the divine substance with the substance of humans, we express its intimacy. Two intimate friends cannot be so closely united. With the substance of their souls they are near each other; but God and the believers are in each other. The substance of both touches each other most closely; indeed the divine permeates the human. But self-evidently, every thought of an essential partaking of the believer in the substance of God, every mixing of God and man, every pantheistic notion of deification is far from this." ELD III, 386

Hoenecke is careful to argue for a real union with God without allowing for a blending of natures, so that the unique character of God is protected. Luther writes similarly in many places, especially in his Galatians commentary. For example:

"But so far as justification is concerned, Christ and I must be so closely attached that He lives in me and I in Him. What a marvelous way of speaking! Because He lives in me, whatever grace, righteousness, life, peace, and salvation there is in me is all Christ’s; nevertheless, it is mine as well, by the cementing and attachment that are through faith, by which we become as one body in the Spirit." LW 26, 127-128

For Luther, there is no separation of God's person from his gifts. When he grants us the righteousness of Christ, he grants us Christ himself. This idea is reflected in the Large Catechism,

"But the Creed brings pure grace and makes us righteous and acceptable to God. Through this knowledge we come to love and delight in all the commandments of God because we see here in the Creed how God gives himself completely to us, with all his gifts and power, to help us keep the Ten Commandments: the Father gives us all creation, Christ all his works, the Holy Spirit all his gifts." (LC II.68)

God grants his gifts including creation, and the work of Christ. Along with such gifts he grants himself, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Through this gift, the Christian is able to delight in God's Law. This union becomes the basis by which Christians grow in their faith, and are daily renewed, killing the old Adam. It is to be noted, however, that the Lutheran approach to this is much less optimistic than the Orthodox, who reach toward a possible goal of sinless perfection prior to one's eschatological glorification. For Luther, the continual forgiveness of sins is still the most essential aspect of the Christian life, though this does not negate the reality of divine indwelling and the actualization of holiness within the Christian.

A Review of William W. Schumacher's "Who Do I Say That You Are?"

The most comprehensive critique of the Finnish school of Luther interpretation available in English is the volume of William Schumacher titled, Who Do I Say That You Are? Anthropology and the Theology of Theosis in the Finnish School of Tuomo Mannermaa. Arguing from an anthropological perspective, Schumacher argues that the Finnish school has misinterpreted Luther's theology, replacing Luther's theology of the word with an ontologically focused approach to the human person. For Schumacher's Luther it is God's word of address to the sinner, as a creative word, which has primacy. This is distinguished from Finnish writers who propose that the human creature is defined by ontological union with God.

For Schumacher, the traditional Lutheran approach to justification and Mannermaa's school are incompatible with one another. Justification is either theosis (Mannermaa) or forensic (the Book of Concord). Thus Mannermaa's approach to justification is essentially an attack on the entire Lutheran tradition after the Osiandrian controversy. Schumacher purports that the Finnish school is "if not a complete rehabilitation of Osiander, then at least the attempt to salvage key elements of his system which has been previously rejected by the Lutheranism of the Formula of Concord."(91) Schumacher points out that the Osiandrian error involved more than a denial of the unity of Christ's two natures, but also the prioritizing of the incarnation of Christ over his death and resurrection, leaving the cross in a subsidiary position. I think Schumacher's argument here is partially correct. There is an overemphasis in many of the Finnish writers on the incarnation, which makes salvation primarily an ontological reality, displacing the objective event of the cross. I don't think the solution to this problem is to reject ontological categories, and the soteriological significance of the incarnation as Schumacher does, but is to have a balanced approach to the soteriological significance of all events in Christ's life. In Lutheran soteriology (along with that of Paul), the cross is always the central salvific event. I think a more balanced approach would be to take the Finnish theology of incarnation, and place it within the context of the Formula's forensic emphasis. While the forensic elements of salvation may be primary, there are also strong ontological themes in Luther's thought which need not be neglected.

One of the problems with Schumacher's contention that the Finnish school is essentially Osiandrian is that he fails to discuss the primary problems with Osiander's theology according to the Formula of Concord. The Formula isn't condemning the concept of ontological union, or the importance of Christ's indwelling; rather, the Formula is seeking to clarify that the infusion of love and other virtues does not precede justification. In other words, the concern of the Formula is salvation by works, not the idea that Christ is present in faith. I think the problem here begins with the Finnish interpretation who conclude that the Formula is opposed to Luther. I don't think such a division exists. Luther places salvation in both juridical and participationist categories. The Formula focuses on the forensic elements (rightly so I think) because of the necessity of clarifying these issues in light of Osiander's teaching. This shouldn't be pitted against Luther's own theology, when Luther was willing to approve of Melancthon's writings on justification with primarily (at times exclusively) forensic language.

The most interesting chapter in Schumacher's work is in his evaluation of Luther's own writings. Schumacher rightly points out that the Finnish school tends to conflate the early and late Luther, ignoring the development of Luther's thought, especially his great Reformation discovery. It is somewhat surprising that one of the most significant passages for the Finnish school comes from a Christmas sermon in 1514, when Luther hadn't yet developed his mature understanding of justification. In some of the more extreme forms of the Finnish approach (Karkkainen for example), the Reformation discovery is almost completely ignored, and one wonders why the Medieval church would even have an issue with Luther's view of justification if this interpretation were correct. Here is where I think Schumacher paints with too broad a brush. While many in this school ignore the categories of imputation, and even sola fide, Mannermaa is careful to place these categories in the context of Luther's overall thought, though I do agree that he downplays their importance. This chapter demonstrates that some of the language used by the Finnish school doesn't mean what they claim in the context of Luther's own writings. However, I remain convinced of the central thesis of Mannermaa that Luther teaches that an ontological union with Christ is the metaphysical basis for God's gracious imputation. In otherwords, Christ is truly present in faith, giving himself to the Christian as righteousness, especially through the debt paid on the cross and Christ's victory over the devil according to both natures; this does not neglect the fact that the union of God and man in the incarnation is also a necessary part of the Christian's righteousness. (Regarding the so-called "active obedience" of Christ, I don't find this theme in Luther, though I personally do affirm its validity).

One of my primary areas of interest, especially as I dealt with this topic in my book The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul, is in the connection between Luther's theology and that of the Church fathers. Schumacher convincingly demonstrates that the influence of the Greek fathers on Luther has been overstated by the Finnish school. Luther's primary influences, rather, were Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Bernard, and the German mystical tradition. He correctly points out that deification language in Luther is taken from medieval mysticism, and is thus not identical with Eastern conceptions of theosis. I would point out, however, that there are many commonalities between the mystical tradition which Luther praises and the Eastern fathers. Whether the Eastern fathers had any significant influence on Bernard, Tauler, or the Theologia Germanica remains to be demonstrated, but one cannot help seeing certain common themes. The Theologia Germanica, for example, states: “God assumed human nature or humanity. He
became humanized and man became divinized. That is the way amends were made." (The Theologia Germanica of Martin Luther, 63) It seems unthinkable to me that Luther would promote and publish the Theologia Germanica and the works of Tauler throughout his life if he didn't agree with their conviction that salvation is in some sense an ontological event.

Schumacher's book is a fascinating read, and is essential to grapple with for any interested in this issue. Schumacher points out some of the genuine flaws in Finnish Luther research, which often lets an ecumenical agenda guide research, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. However, in doing this, Shumacher swings too far in the other direction, ignoring the ontological soteriological concepts that are prominent in such works as "On Christian Liberty", "Two Kinds of Righteousness", and the 1535 Galatians commentary. The fact that Luther could promote both Melancthon's works which deal almost exclusively in legal categories, and the Theologia Germanica which deals almost exclusively in ontological categories should show us that both sides in this debate have often set up a false dichotomy which was foreign to Luther.

Osiander and the Finnish Interpretation of Luther

When I published my article "A Lutheran Response to Justification: Five Views," (which can be found here) I was suspected by some of being guilty of the teaching of Osiander, which was condemned by the Formula of Concord. This is due to my adherence to certain themes of the Finnish interpretation of Luther; namely, that Luther's soteriology is participationist rather than purely juridical. I argued that justification is not a bare declaration wherein Christ's righteousness is passed to the believer in the heavenly Law-court, but it involves the reception of the person of Christ. In other words, Christ's attributes are not separated from His person. One does not receive Christ's righteousness without receiving Christ Himself.

I want to clear up some misconceptions, since my upcoming book "The Righteousness of One" is highly indebted to the Finnish school of thought. In my view, Luther teaches that Christ is present in faith. Faith receives Christ's person, and based on this mystical union, the believer is declared righteous by the righteousness of Christ. I agree with much of what Mannermaa has done in finding a doctrine of theosis in Luther, but I disagree with him on some major points. There is not an exact identification of justification/theosis in Luther's thought, but they are related concepts, and both important to his theological project.

First, let me clarify that I disagree with much of what has been done by figures other than Mannermaa in this school of thinking. Karkkainen, for example, conflates justification and theosis, so as to neglect important reformation themes, such as the imputation of Christ's righteousness which are central to Luther's thought. For Karkkainen, "Justification for Luther means primarily participation in God through the indwelling of Christ in the heart through the Spirit." (One With God, 59) I think we would do better to take Luther's own word for it when he defines justification as the fact that "through faith we receive a different, new, clean heart and that, for the sake of Christ our mediator, God will and does regard us as completely righteous and holy." (SA 12:1)For Luther, there is a real participation in God through the indwelling Christ, but this is not to be equated with justification itself.

It's argued by many in the Confessional Lutheran camp that the Finnish interpretation of Luther is essentially a modified form of Osiander's theology. It is also argued by the Finnish writers that the Lutheran Confessions depart from Luther's teaching that Christ is present in faith, placing mystical union as subsequent to justification, rather than vice versa. I don't think such a strict division exists between Luther and the Formula on this point.

The Formula does not condemn what is proposed by Mannermaa as Luther's teaching on mystical union. What is condemned is the teaching of Osiander that one is justified based on the indwelling divine nature of Christ. Contrary to this, Luther teaches that justification comes as a result of both natures of Christ, primarily through his life giving death and resurrection. The other false teaching of Osiander, as condemned by the Formula, is that believers are in any sense justified by their own works. That's why the majority of Article III argues, not against mystical union, but against the contention that justification is based on the renewal or good works of the sinner. Look, for example at III.35:

"Therefore, even if the converted and believers have the beginnings of renewal, sanctification, love, virtues, and good works, yet these cannot, should not, and must not be introduced or mixed with the article of justification before God, so that the proper honor may be accorded to our Redeemer Christ ad (because our new obedience is imperfect and impure) so that the consciences under attack may have a reliable comfort." (FC SD III.35)

The point here is that justification is not based on infused love, virtues, or good works inherent in the believer. Neither I, nor Mannermaa, have taught this. It may be argued however that mystical union is, in the Formula, always a result of justification, rather than a prior or simultaneous reality: "this indwelling is a result of the righteousness of faith which precedes it." (FC SD III.54) Note that what is rejected is the idea that this indwelling that is a result of justification. It is rejected that the Osiandrian sense of indwelling, the infusion of virtues and love, precedes faith, because this would result in a righteousness based on works. That doesn't mean that indwelling of the person of Christ in faith must be subsequent to justification. It does not deny that Christ gives his whole person to the believer in justification. In fact, the Confessions reject the notion that "not God but only the gifts of God dwell in believers." (FC SD III.65)

It is worth noting that the Article III of the Formula says, "For any further, necessary explanation of this lofty and sublime article on justification before God, upon which the salvation of our souls depends, we wish to recommend to everyone the wonderful, magnificent exposition by Dr. Luther of St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, and for the sake of brevity we refer to it at this point." (FC SD III.67) This gives the Galatians commentary a semi-Confessional status, since the Lutheran fathers agreed unanimously to point to this text as a correct exposition to justification. It is the Galatians commentary of Luther which has in fact served as the basis for the Finnish school of thought. In my own reading of Luther's Galatians commentary, it seems undeniable that Christ is present in faith, and that justification involves the receiving of Christ's person as righteousness.

I hope this helps clarify some of my positions on this issue. I affirm sola fide, the imputation of Christ's righteousness, Christ's active and passive obedience, and all the other traditional themes associated with justification in the Lutheran tradition. I am trying to clarify this, since some seem to think that my association with the Finnish school of thought has led me to an unorthodox approach to justification. If you are interested in this issue, take a look at Kurt Marquart's essay "Luther and Theosis," which agrees with my position on the issue.

A Review of "On Being a Theologian of the Cross" by Gerhard Forde

I have written a review of Gerhard Forde's work On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. It can be found Here.

Luther on the Necessity of Preaching on Sanctification

"For a Christ who died for sinners who, after receiving forgiveness, will not quit their sin nor lead a new life, is worthless and does not exist.... There is nothing in their preaching concerning sanctification of the Holy Ghost and about being quickened into a new life. They preach only about the redemption of Christ. It is proper to extol Christ in our preaching; but Christ is the Christ and has acquired redemption from sin and death for this very purpose that the Holy Spirit should change our Old Adam into a new man, that we are to be dead unto sin and live unto righteousness, as Paul teaches Rom 6.2 ff., and that we are to begin this change and increase in this new life here and consummate it hereafter. For Christ has gained for us not only grace (gratiam), but also the gift (donum), of the Holy Ghost, so that we obtain from Him not only forgiveness of sin, but also the ceasing from sin. Any one, therefore, who does not cease from his sin, but continues in his former evil way must have obtained a different Christ, from the Antinomians. The genuine Christ is not with them, even if they cry with the voice of all the angels, Christ! Christ! They will have to go to perdition with their new Christ." Martin Luther Concerning Councils and Churches, as quoted by C.F.W. Walther in The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 121-122

Free Lutheran Kindle Books

I recently purchased a Kindle. My first thought of course was to see if there was any way to find Confessional Lutheran works for free in kindle format. I found this website: RetroRead.com which allows you to convert books in epub format to kindle, and it sends them directly to your kindle. I spent a few hours searching google books and found some great resources. So this is to save you the time in looking for and converting books from googlebooks.

Charles Krauth- The Conservative Reformation and its Theology
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-conservative-reformation-and-its-theology-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Commentary on the Gospel of John
http://www.retroread.com/title/Commentary-on-the-gospel-of-John-by-August-Tholuck-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation in the Calvinistic System
http://www.retroread.com/title/Infant-baptism-and-infant-salvation-in-the-Calvinistic-system-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-chronicle-of-the-Augsburg-confession-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Poverty
http://www.retroread.com/title/Poverty-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Baptism
http://www.retroread.com/title/Baptism-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Adolph Spaeth- Charles Porterfield Krauth (Biography)
http://www.retroread.com/title/Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-by-Adolph-Spaeth-ebook.html

Ambrose Henkel- Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/Symbolical-books-of-the-Evangelical-Lutheran-Church-by-Ambrose-Henkel-ebook.html

Theodore Schmauk- The Confessional Principle and the Principles of the Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-confessional-principle-and-the-confessions-of-the-Lutheran-church-by-Theodore-Emanuel-Schmauk-ebook.html

Johann Gerhard- Sacred Meditations
http://www.retroread.com/title/Gerhard-s-sacred-meditations-by-Johann-Gerhard-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Works Volume 1
http://www.retroread.com/title/Works-of-Martin-Luther-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Marie Richard- Philip Jacob Spener and his Work
http://www.retroread.com/title/Philip-Jacob-Spener-and-his-work-by-Marie-E-Richard-ebook.html

John Kohler-Shall we have a bishop? Or, The episcopate for the Lutheran church in America?
http://www.retroread.com/title/Shall-we-have-a-bishop%3F-Or-The-episcopate-for-the-Lutheran-church-in-America-by-John-Kohler-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-way-of-salvation-in-the-Lutheran-church-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Lutheran Church in the Country
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-church-in-the-country-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Lutheran Pastor
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-pastor-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Lutheran Catechist
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-catechist-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- What's Wrong with the World?
http://www.retroread.com/title/What-s-wrong-with-the-world%3F-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- New Testament Conversions
http://www.retroread.com/title/New-Testament-conversions-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- the Priesthood of Believers
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-priesthood-of-believers-in-its-relation-to-inner-mission-work-of-Christian-social-service-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

Heinrich Friedrich Ferdinand Shmid- The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-doctrinal-theology-of-the-Evangelical-Lutheran-church-by-Heinrich-Friedrich-Ferdinand-Schmid-ebook.html

A.G. Voigt- Biblical Dogmatics
http://www.retroread.com/title/Biblical-dogmatics-by-A-G-Voigt-ebook.html

Jeurgen Ludwig Neve- A Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-brief-history-of-the-Lutheran-church-in-America-by-Juergen-Ludwig-Neve-ebook.html

Henry Immanuel Smith- Scriptural Character of the Lutheran Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
http://www.retroread.com/title/Scriptural-character-of-the-Lutheran-doctrine-of-the-Lord-s-Supper-by-Henry-Immanuel-Smith-ebook.html

Theodor Haring- The Christian Faith
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Christian-faith-by-Theodor-H%C3%A4ring-ebook.html

Henry Eyster Jacobs- A Summary of the Christian Faith
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-summary-of-the-Christian-faith-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

James William Richard- The Confessional History of the Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-confessional-history-of-the-Lutheran-church-by-James-William-Richard-ebook.html

Wilhelm Lohe- Liturgy for Christian Congregations of the Lutheran Faith
http://www.retroread.com/title/Liturgy-for-Christian-congregations-of-the-Lutheran-faith-by-Wilhelm-L%C3%B6he-ebook.html

Memoirs of the Lutheran Liturgical Association
http://www.retroread.com/title/Memoirs-of-the-Lutheran-Liturgical-Association-by-Lutheran-Liturgical-Association-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Large Catechism
http://www.retroread.com/title/Luther-s-large-catechism-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Epistles-of-St-Peter-and-St-Jude-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Henry Eyster Jacobs- Martin Luther, the Hero of the Reformation
http://www.retroread.com/title/Martin-Luther-the-hero-of-the-reformation-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

Charles Beard- Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany until the Close of the Diet of Worms
http://www.retroread.com/title/Martin-Luther-and-the-reformation-in-Germany-until-the-close-of-the-Diet-of-Worms-by-Charles-Beard-ebook.html

What exactly is the Lutheran view of baptism?

I have been asked to give a brief overview of the Lutheran doctrine of baptism. I have done many posts on the topic but none which includes a comprehensive explanation of the Lutheran view. I will attempt to do so succinctly if possible.

The best place to go for the Lutheran view of baptism is Martin Luther himself. His Small Catechism gives a brief yet profound explanation:

What is Baptism?
Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God's command and combined with God's word.

Which is that word of God?
Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Matthew: "Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

What benefits does Baptism give?
It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Which are these words and promises of God?
Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Mark: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

How can water do such great things?
Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God's word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus chapter three:
"He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying." (Titus 3:5-8)

What does such baptizing with water indicate?
It indicates that the Old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is this written?
St. Paul writes in Romans chapter six: "We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:4)

What we believe about baptism:

Baptism is essentially a means by which He has chosen to bring us His Spirit and the forgiveness of sins. God often uses things which seem ordinary to do miraculous works. He speaks to us through a book. He came to us in human flesh. He even spoke through an ass! God often hides Himself in ordinary elements as He reveals Himself. This is the same with the water of baptism.
We believe in baptismal regeneration. This means that the Spirit has chosen to work through baptismal water in the same way that He works through His word. Reformed Christians often say that the preached word is a means of regeneration but baptism is not. We believe that both are means which God uses to bring His promise to us. Baptism is the gospel in visible form, thus it gives all of the benefits of the gospel.
We believe in infant baptism. Since infants cannot understand the word, God uses baptism as a means to regenerate them and bring them into the faith. Through it, God gives faith. If faith is truly a gift of God and not a human work, God can certainly do this for an infant. He can also do it through whatever means He has chosen.
We believe that baptism is a form of the gospel, not a form of the law. Baptism is an act performed by Christ, through the hands of the administer of the sacrament. It is His gift of life and salvation. It is not a work we do. It is not something we do to profess our faith, or to profess that we will raise our children in the faith. It is a gift of grace through the promise of the gospel.

What we do not believe:

We do not believe that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Since God works through both word and sacrament, the word is sufficient to regenerate and save. However, if one refuses to get baptized, this is evidence that he was never saved since he is denying what Christ has commanded.
We do not believe the Roman Catholic view of baptism. The Roman Catholic church denies that faith is necessarily given at baptism. They also deny that sin remains after baptism.
We do not believe that everyone who was ever baptized will be saved. If one rejects God's offer through baptism, or does not continue in the faith given at baptism, his baptism becomes a means of judgement rather than salvation.
This does not mean that we deny justification by faith alone because we believe baptism saves. The issue is that baptism and faith are not separate things. Baptism gives and strengthens faith. Baptism also delivers the promise which faith clings to.

These are the main points of the Lutheran view of baptism and how it differs from both the Reformed and Roman Catholic teachings on the subject.

This is just really cool

Luther on the atonement

I have heard it argued by some reformed Christians, including Timothy George, that Luther taught limited atonement. Clearly, in his later writings he teaches a universal atonement. However, in his lectures on Romans in 1515 he seems to teach that the atonement was only for the elect. While I had previously thought this was the only time Luther made such a statement, I have found something in an early sermon which teaches something similar. In an exposition of Hebrews chapter 1 Luther states that Christ "has poured out his love for us and made purification for our sins. The apostle says "our," "our sins;" not his own sin, not the sins of unbelievers. Purification is not for, and cannot profit, him who does not believe." (Complete Sermons of Martin Luther volume 3.1 pg. 180) Unfortunately, this sermon does not have a date in the volume, though it his clear in his discussion of the two natures of Christ that he has not yet engaged the issue of the communication of attributes of the divine to the human nature. Thus, it is one of his earlier sermons. It seems that Luther did hold to a limited atonement at the beginning of his reformational career. He did eventually abandon this and clearly teach a universal atonement while still retaining the doctrine of predestination.

With this in mind, I am curious as to the reasons Luther abandoned this older teaching. I wonder if the writing of St. Prosper "The Call of All Nations" had an influence in changing his view, since it is a work he refers to several times in his writings and letters. Prosper himself taught limited atonement and abandoned it for the paradox that God predestines specific men unto salvation yet also gives universal grace to all mankind. Luther would not have known this as he thought the work to have been written by Ambrose, however.

Has anybody else run across these kinds of quotes in Luther's older works, or know when this sermon was written?

Luther on the third use of the law

For those who deny that Luther had any "third use of the law" look at this text from his sermon on Matthew 22:34-46 from 1533:

"We dare not neglect the catechism's teaching of the God-given Ten Commandments as an insignificant doctrine, but must diligently use it in teaching people how they must live this earthly life. Of course, showing them how to be saved takes an entire different doctrine than the Ten Commandments, namely the doctrine of Christ, which our Lord presents a little later. But you must use the Ten Commandments to teach people how they must live in this life."

From Luther's Commentary on the Apostle's Creed

"I believe in God the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth"
Here, first of all, a great light shines into your heart if you permit it to and teaches you in a few words what all the languages of the world and a multitude of books cannot describe or fathom in words, namely, who you are, whence you came, whence came heaven and earth. You are God's creation, his handiwork. That is, of yourself and in yourself you are nothing, can do nothing, know nothing, are capable of nothing. What were you a thousand years ago? What were heaven and earth before creation? Nothing, just as that which will never be created is nothing. But what you are, know, can do, and can achieve is God's creation, as you confess in the Creed by word of mouth. Therefore you have nothing to boast about before God except that you are nothing and He is your Creator who can annihilate you at any moment.
Reason knows nothing of such a light. Many great thinkers sought to know what heaven and earth, people and animals are and have found no answer. But here is declared and faith affirms that God has created everything out of nothing. Here is the soul's garden of pleasure, along whose paths we enjoy the works of God- bit it would take too long to describe all that.
Furthermore, we should give thanks to God in that His kindness He has created us out of nothing and provides for our daily needs out of nothing- has made us to be such excellent beings with body and soul, intelligence, five senses, and has ordained us to be masters of earth, of fish, bird, beast, etc. Here consider Genesis, chapters one, two and three.
Third, we should confess and lament our lack of faith and gratitude in failing to take this to heart, or to believe, ponder, and acknowledge it, and having been more stupid than unthinking beasts.
Fourth, we pray for a true and confident faith that sincerely esteems and trusts God to be our Creator, as this article declares.

Myths about Luther

I took this from James White's blog. Anyone who knows me knows that I love reading Martin Luther. Thus, I have had most of the same things said to me about Luther and I am constantly having to tell people that they are not true. I think I'll have to write my own about Calvin as well. One thing I do want to mention is that anyone who thinks Luther was an antinomian (which is the false claim I hear most often) he should read Luther's commentary on 1 Peter. The whole of his theology comes out much fuller than in the Galatians commentary.

1. Luther Threw an Inkwell at Satan
Recently I found a Jehovah's Witness attempting to prove Luther was a psychopath. He brought up the story in which Luther hurled an inkwell at Satan. The story is not true. It first appeared towards the end of the sixteenth century, and is said to have been told by a former Wittenberg student. In this early version, the Devil in the guise of a monk threw an inkwell at Luther while he was secluded in the Wartburg. By 1650, the story shifted to Luther throwing the inkwell at Satan. Like any bizarre legend, the story morphed, and houses where Luther stayed had spots on the walls, and these were also said to be inkwells that Luther threw at the Devil.

2. Luther's Evangelical Breakthrough Occurred in the Bathroom
This same Jehovah's Witness denigrated Luther by repeating a newer myth, that Luther's understanding of Romans 1:17-18 came to him while in the bathroom in the tower of the Augustinian cloister. In the twentieth century, many approached Luther by applying psychoanalysis to his writings. Psychologist Eric Erikson took a German phrase uttered by Luther and interpreted it literally to mean Luther was in the bathroom when he had his evangelical breakthrough. Erikson concluded, from a Freudian perspective, Luther's spiritual issues were tied up with biological functions. But, there was not a bathroom in the tower. The phrase Erikson interpreted literally in German was simply conventional speech. Luther really was saying that his breakthrough came during a time when he was depressed, or in a state of melancholy.

3. Luther Repented and Re-entered the Church on his Deathbed
I've come across this one on popular Catholic discussion boards. No, it is not true. One of Luther's early opponents popularized the account that Luther was a child of the Devil, and was taken directly to Hell when he died. Now though, more ecumenically minded Catholics hope for the ultimate in conversion stories. Luther died around 3:00 AM on February 18, 1546. His last words and actions were recorded by his friend Justus Jonas. Luther was asked, "Reverend father, will you die steadfast in Christ and the doctrines you have preached?" Luther responded affirmatively. Luther also quoted John 3:16 and Psalm 31:5. In his last prayer he said to God, "Yet I know as a certainty that I shall live with you eternally and that no one shall be able to pluck me out of your hands." These are hardly the words of a Roman Catholic waiting to enter purgatory.

4. Luther's Hymns Were Originally Tavern Songs
Some involved in Contemporary Christian Music use this argument to validate contemporary styles of music being used in church: if even the great Martin Luther found value in contemporary music being used in Church, shouldn't we likewise do the same? In actuality, Luther used only one popular folk tune, I Came From An Alien Country, changed the words, and named the hymn, From Heaven On High, I Come to You. Four years after he did this, he changed the music to an original composition.

5. Luther Spoke in Tongues
Charismatic cyber-apologists have put this one out. They refer to an old quote from a German historian who stated, "Luther was easily the greatest evangelical man after the apostles, full of inner love to the Lord like John, hasty in deed like Peter, deep in thinking like Paul, cunning and powerful in speech like Elijah, uncompromising against God's enemies like David; PROPHET and evangelist, speaker-in-tongues and interpreter in one person, equipped with all the gifts of grace, a light and pillar of the church..." Luther though held, "Tongues are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. But later on, when the church had been gathered and confirmed by these signs, it was not necessary for this visible sending forth of the Holy Spirit to continue."

6. Luther Added The Word Alone To Romans 3:28
This is frequently brought up by the zealous defenders of Rome. Luther is said to have been so careless and outrageous with his translation of the Bible, he simply added words to make the Bible say what he wanted it to. Luther gave a detailed explanation of why the passage has the meaning of alone,and this explanation has been available online for years. This charge also shows an ignorance of church history. Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out, "...[T]wo of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him." Fitzmyer lists the following: Origen, Hillary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Theophylact, Theodoret, Thomas Aquinas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine [Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361].

7. Luther Was an Antinomian and Hated the Law of God
Recently a friend wrote me and said charges about Luther being an antinomian were circulating in his church. Luther's theology indeed has a place for the law of God and its use in the life of a Christian. The law for Luther was dual purposed: it first drives one to see their sin and need for a savior; secondly it functions in the life of a Christian to lead one to a correct understanding of the good one ought to do. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Luther knows how important Moses and the law was in his theology. In Luther's Small Catechism the Ten Commandments were placed first because he wanted people to understand that God is wrathful against sin. The negative prohibitions in the Ten Commandments clearly showed our need for a savior. Also in his Small Catechism, Luther suggests a daily regiment of prayer and includes a verbal reading of the Ten Commandments.

8. Luther Acted Like a Protestant Pope
Catholic apologists perpetuate this one. They tend to reduce everything to a need for an infallible interpreter. They use highly rhetorical or polemical comments from Luther out of context, rather than those statements when Luther evaluates his value and his work. Toward the end of his life, Luther reviewed his work and stated, "My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by Gods grace) have written anything good." And also, "I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board" [LW 34: 283-284].

9. Luther Was a Drunk
The historical record nowhere documents Luther ever being drunk. It does provide evidence that he did drink alcohol, and that he enjoyed drinking. One needs only to survey the massive output of work that Luther produced to settle the matter that he was not an alcoholic, nor did he have a drinking problem. Luther preached and wrote against drunkenness throughout his entire life with vigor and force.

10. Luther Said Imputed Righteousness is Like Snow Covered Dung
I saved this one for last, simply because I'm not sure if it's a myth or not. It does seem to me like something Luther would've said: "Therefore let us embrace Christ, who was delivered for us, and His righteousness; but let us regard our righteousness as dung, so that we, having died to sins, may live to God alone" [LW 30:294]. "Explanation of Martin Luther: I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. It does not hurt the sun, because it sends its rays into the sewer" [LW 34: 184].