# What was Martin Luther's view of the Atonement?



## InSlaveryToChrist

It seems to me, unless I'm reading Luther wrong, that he was inconsistent in his theology concerning the Atonement, election, God's will and God's sovereignty. The following is from Luther's Works, Vol. 25: Lectures on Romans (p. 277). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition: 

second argument is that “God desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), and He gave His Son for us men and created man for eternal life. Likewise: All things exist for man, and he himself exists for God that he may enjoy Him, etc.39 These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For *these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only*, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 “everything for the sake of the elect.” For *in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all*, because He says: “This is My blood which is poured out for you” and “for many” – He does not say: for all – “for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 14:24, Matt. 26:28).

And this is from Luther's Sermon for Septuagesima Sunday:

"From the last words of our Gospel: "For many be called, but few chosen," foolish and wicked thoughts have been drawn by idle fellows, who say the meaning of this sentence is that God has chosen some unto salvation, and these will be saved without a doubt, while on the other hand those who are not thus chosen will be damned, no matter how piously or how faithfully they may live; for it is the will of God that such shall fall and not be saved. Hence they conclude that it is a matter of indifference how they live; for if I am to be saved, it will take place without my concern about it, and if I am not to be saved, all my concern about it will avail nothing. What reckless, secure people such ungodly thoughts will produce every one can judge.

When we considered the Gospel for Epiphany, and pondered the saying of the prophet Micah, we learned that all such thoughts as imprudently meddle with the incomprehensible providence of God are of the devil, and that it behooves us to pursue another method of contemplation in regard to the will of God. For such thoughts are sure to bring man into despair, or to render him reckless and regardless of consequences.

The proper course to know the will of God aright, and to avoid offense in this regard, is to trust implicitly in Christ, as He Himself declares: "No man cometh to the Father but by me." Whoever wishes to know the Father and to come unto Him, must first come unto Christ and learn to know Him as the Son of God, as the omnipotent, eternal God. And what did the Son of God achieve? He becomes man for us; He submits Himself to the law to free us from the law; He is crucified and dies upon the cross to pay the ransom for our sins; He arises from the dead to open for us through His resurrection the entrance into heaven, and to defend us against everlasting death; He sitteth at the right hand of God as our Mediator, and through His Holy Spirit He rules and guides His people and protects them against the wiles and persecutions of the devil. To know Christ thus is to know Him aright.

If this knowledge is fully and firmly fixed in your heart, then look towards heaven and meditate upon this subject thus: If the Son of God has performed all this for us at the command and according to the will of the Father, what then must be the disposition of God towards us? Surely, your own heart will constrain you to exclaim: God loves us, for He even gave His only Son unto us and for us. He desires not our death, for He employs the noblest and most precious remedy to give us life. In this way we are truly brought to God, as Christ says, John 3: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Compare these truths with the above mentioned thoughts, and you will discover that the latter come from the devil, and that they must cause offense, either hurling men into hopeless despair, or making them reckless; for they can hope nothing good from God.

A few, again, interpret these words: "Many be called but few chosen," to mean that God offers His grace unto many, but permits only few to accept it. Such an explanation is viciously wrong, for it follows from it, as a necessary consequence, that God is to be blamed if we are not all saved; and to believe this would be utter and satanic blasphemy, as every one can see who will but look at Christ as the Son of God and our Savior.

This expression, "Many be called," &c. must therefore be understood in a far different sense. The Gospel is preached publicly, and universally, unto all who wish to hear and to accept it; yea, God has it thus proclaimed, so that every one can hear and believe it and be saved. But what is the result? It is as the Gospel states, that "few are chosen," because there are but few who so receive the Gospel that God can be pleased with them. Some hear it, but heed it not; others hear it and at first accept it, but do not retain it in times of adversity; others again hear it, but value it less than money and worldly pleasures. This is not pleasing to God, nor does He delight in such people. This Christ calls not being chosen; that is, not conducting themselves so that God could have pleasure in them. The chosen ones of God are those who love to hear His Gospel, who believe in Christ and manifest their faith by good works, being prepared to suffer for it if need be.

This is the true sense of the words, and this will not offend people, but cause them to amend, so that they will think: If I am to please God and be among the chosen ones, it will not do for me to live with a bad conscience, to sin against the commandments of God, and not to resist sin; but I must hear the Word preached, pray for the Holy Spirit, not suffer the Word to be removed from the heart, contend against Satan and his suggestions, and pray for protection, patience, and assistance. This will make good Christians. On the other hand, those who think that God does not wish all to have salvation, either fall into despair or become reckless, ungodly people who live like brutes, thinking: If it is ordained beforehand whether I shall be saved or not, why should I put myself to any inconvenience about it? No, this is wrong; we have the command to hear the Word of God and to believe that Christ is our Savior, who has paid the ransom for our sins. Remember that command and obey it. Should your faith fail or you prove weak, pray God for His Holy Spirit, and do not doubt that Christ is your Savior, and you shall be saved through Him, if you believe in Him, that is, comfort yourself with His merits. May Christ Jesus, our dear Lord, grant this to all of us. Amen."

So, was Luther a proponent of Limited/Particular Atonement, or was he a Universalist, or was he an Amyraldian? Did Luther believe God wants all men without exception to be saved? Did he reject double predestination?


----------



## CharlieJ

There's definitely room to talk about different aspects of this, but I want to highlight that for Luther, election discloses itself in faith. That is, there is no election standing outside of belief in Christ and life in the Spirit. At least at the beginning part of the sermon, Luther is combating those who try to separate the end (election to salvation) from the means (faith and holiness). The latter part of the sermon does strike me as strange, but I'm not sure what the resolution to the issue is at the moment.

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------

You might try Luther's catechisms or his more systematic works for an explanation. Sermons and commentaries will not necessarily give the whole picture.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Lutherans tend to settle themselves with the paradoxical approach. They tend to cling to a few key texts that explain things sufficiently for them, and resign the rest to "mystery." They will accuse the Reformed of "going to far" and being "rationalistic," because we think that the revelation God _has given_ calls us into deeper reflection, a thoroughly systematic theology that addresses every scrap of biblical revelation, and the need to bring more of our system into true harmony, and to remove as many apparent contradictions as possible. And only then, lay up the rest into the mystery-of-God.

Knowledgeable Lutherans are *adamant* that they are monergistic on the question of salvation. They also insist on the deadness of man's will, and the necessity of faith. And they believe in baptismal regeneration. And they believe that God so implants faith by baptism, and that God saves those who have faith, and keeps them in the faith by the means of grace. They believe election is "in Christ," meaning that the only way to understand election is to view Christ as elect and believers in him, and not that "persons" are elect (hence, Rom.9 is more of a "corporate" discussion of election to them, and not individual). And they believe that people can lose their salvation. And they bel--... 

Whoops. What was that? How can God give a gift (faith, salvation) and take it back, based on something I do/fail to do (maintain, attend, ... ) ??!? And yet it's ALL what God does (monergism), his giving, his maintaining me, his gift of faith...

Reformed people see an irreconcilable inconsistency there, an inconsistency based on how WE read the data, and based on a presumptively shared Augustinian basis for our doctrine of election. We have to allow that the Lutherans do not accept that reckoning of an inconsistency. We have to understand that they are actually critical of Augustin at certain points. They tend to follow the softening of certain Augustinian tenets by the Council of Orange.

Do I think Lutheran's inject a strong human-dependent element into their "monergism" at this point? Absolutely, I do. But, to their credit, they allow that it is only a negative element, that sin and its power is the source. How does it happen that God alone gives salvation equally to all recipients (of his means), nevertheless salvation is dependent on me when I hold or fail to hold on to it; and yet this salvation is ascribed to God's power alone, "from beginning to end." Is it, or isn't it, we ask. Isn't God responsible for the strength and practice of my grip? And why mine, and not that guy's, if it hasn't to do with election?

And the Lutheran says, "It's a mystery. We just know you are wrong to say it is about pretemporal elect persons or not."

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Could it be possible that at some point in his late years Luther radically changed his own view of God's sovereignty, election, love and/or the Atonement from the theology he had AFTER he came to embrace salvation by faith alone?

---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> At least at the beginning part of the sermon, Luther is combating those who try to separate the end (election to salvation) from the means (faith and holiness).



That's exactly the impression I got from the text! But then the end part seems very odd, indeed.


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> Whoops. What was that? How can God give a gift (faith, salvation) and take it back, based on something I do/fail to do (maintain, attend, ... ) ??!? And yet it's ALL what God does (monergism), his giving, his maintaining me, his gift of faith...



I remember seeing a chart that distinguished between monergism and synergism before and after conversion.

Calvinism is monergism for both, Arminianism is synergism for both, Lutheranism is monergism before conversion and synergism after conversion, and "once-saved-always-saved" is synergism before conversion and monergism after conversion. It's generalized in a lot of ways, but I found it helpful conceptually.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Thanks, Don. That's actually a very nice summary, possibly a bit stereotyped, but I think I'll file that away under "soundbite answers."


----------

