Martin Luther on Christ's Atonement

MARTIN LUTHER  ON CHRIST'S ATONEMENT

“We were not ashamed to proclaim our doctrine before the emperor, the pope, yes, at all diets and publicly before all our enemies.” –Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, p. 412

“Daher kann und will ich nichts widerrufen, weil wider das Gewissen etwas zu tun weder sicher noch heilsam ist. Gott helfe mir, Amen!” –Martin Luther (source: http://www.luther.de/leben/worms.html  )

Building Concensus

On June 1st, 1538 A.D., Luther gives sermon where he elaborates a detailed account of the work of salvation, as it pertains to atonement. The Turk tries to achieve atonement by living morally.  On the other hand, the pope followed Bonaventure’s theory of atonement (which is later modified further by Thomas Aquinas).  Bonaventure’s theory of the atonement was a modification of Anselm’s theory in that Christ’s death on the cross only covered original sin and sinful acts committed by a person needed additional atonement.  Luther rejects both the Turk's and the pope's approaches as salvation by works. (Bertram 1575, 333)

Because Christ was one person with two natures, we can see that all of the attributes from each nature were in one person.  (Bertram 1575, 361) Because Christ suffered during crucifixion, and all attributes from each nature were in one person, it can be said that both God and man suffered on the cross.   Support for God as one who suffers can furthermore be found in Hebrews 6:6 and 1 Corinthians 2:8.  (Bertram 1575, 362)

The Apostles ’ Creed affirms a God who suffers, though the papists don’t understand this. If they had understood it, they would not have added works. Seeking God apart from Christ leads to hell, but faith in Christ saves. (Bertram 1575, 366)

Engaging the Argument

Is it possible that evidence of two atonement theories, Anselm and Christus Victor, in Luther shows more of a progression of thought rather than holding to both ideas together simultaneously?

Apart from the Anselm/Christus-Victor debate, there is also debate concerning theosis. Tuomo Mannermaa
 argued that Luther held to theosis, which is divination or participating in God’s divine nature. Based upon Luther’s Galatians commentary from 1531, Mannermaa focuses on Christ as the “form” of faith.  Thus, Mannerma argues that instead of a forensic declaration of righteousness, it is the uniting of the believer with Christ through faith which saves.  However, Timo Laato responds by arguing that the 1531 Galatians commentary provides more support for a forensic justification rather than an indwelling Christ who deifies.
(Mattes 2014, 267-268)  This evidence is pretty clear against Mannermaa and so there is not much debate here.

Yet, on the Anselm/Christus Victor issue, when we look at the entire corpus of Luther’s works, there is some debate.  

Satisfaction can be seen in Luther’s writings in several places.  In the commentary on Romans, written in 1515-1516, Luther writes, “God does not grant grace freely in the sense that He demanded no satisfaction, but He offered up Christ, that He should render satisfaction for us, in order now to give grace freely to those who had rendered satisfaction through another.” (Spitz 175)  As well, Luther’s 1519 Meditation on Christ’s Passion strongly suggests substitutionary atonement in its reference to Isaiah 53.

However, one can also find Christus Victor in Luther’s writings.  Michael Plathow finds Christus Victor themes in Luther’s illustration of the baited-Leviathan.   He gives an example from Easter Monday, on April 2nd, 1526 where Luther preached in Wittenberg.  He also cites an example from Luther’s Galatians commentary written from 1531-35. (Plathow 2003, 128)  In the 30^th Sermon of the Gospel of John series from 1538, we saw the baited-Leviathan theme come out as well. (Bertram  1575, 355)  

Johann Christian Konran von Hofman argued that Anselm’s teaching could not be found in any of Luther’s writings.   Theodosius Harnack argued that Anselm’s ideas can be found in Luther’s emphasis on the wrath of God. Albrecht Ritschl argued that Luther did not hold to Anselm’s theory of the atonement.  Rather, Luther emphasized the Christus Victor ideas of victory over evil.  However, according to Ritschl, Luther held this only as left-over medeival theology which was ultimately irreconcilable with Luther’s reformation theology. Paul Althus agreed with Harnack that Anselm was Luther’s primary atonement theology while holding to Christus Victor as a secondary atonement emphasis in Luther. (Arnold 274-275)

Yet, it is not inappropriate to talk about a progression of thought in Luther’s life. 

Progression of thought can be seen in some other areas of Luther’s theology.  In the 27^th Sermon, the footnote mentions that in this sermon Luther took up the position of each new soul being separately created. This is in contrast to his former writings where Luther held that the soul was passed from parent to child. (Bertram 1575. 327)

In 1525, Luther married, endured a large peasant revolt, parted ways with Erasmus over the bondage of the will, and was well on his way to creating an institutional Lutheranism. (Mullet 159)  This marked a point where Luther was more careful on his doctrinal teachings.  Where previously, he affirmed Augustine’s teaching of Christ as both example and sacrament, Luther later clarified that Christ is first a sacrament and only afterward becomes an example.  (Arnold 277)

In his interpretation of Galatians 3:13 and Philippians 2:9, Luther advocated an Anselmian atonement conception.  After 1518, Luther rarely quotes Anselm.  Lienhard writes that Anselm held to Christ’s work made effective on the basis of His human nature, while Luther held to Christ’s work made effective on the basis of both human and divine nature.  Luther’s Large Catechism explicitly states, “he has obtained satisfaction for me and paid what I owed.”  Uwe Rieske-Braun showed that Luther sometimes alternated between Christus Victor and satisfaction, while other times combined the two together.  However, Luther never considered the two approaches to be opposed to each other. (Arnold 284) 

Implications

Millard Erickson highlights some important implications for atonement theology:

The substitutionary theory of the atoning death of Christ, when grasped in all its complexity, is a rich and meaningful truth. It carries several major implications for our understanding of salvation:

1. The penal-substitution theory confirms the biblical teaching of the total depravity of all humans. God would not have gone so far as to put his precious Son to death had it not been absolutely necessary. Humans are totally unable to meet their own need.

2. God’s nature is not one-sided, nor is there any tension between its different aspects. He is not merely righteous and demanding, nor merely loving and giving. He is righteous, so much so that sacrifice for sin had to be provided. He is loving, so much so that he provided that sacrifice himself.

3. There is no other way of salvation but by grace, and specifically, the death of Christ. It has an infinite value and thus covers the sins of all humankind for all time. A finite sacrifice, by contrast, cannot even fully cover the sins of the individual offering it.

4. There is security for the believer in his or her relationship to God. For the basis of the relationship, Christ’s sacrificial death, is complete and permanent. Although our feelings might change, the ground of our relationship to God remains unshaken.

5. We must never take lightly the salvation we have. Although it is free, it is also costly, for it cost God the ultimate sacrifice. We must therefore always be grateful for what he has done; we must love him in return and emulate his giving character. (Erickson 840)

“whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;” (Romans 3:25 NRSV)

ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων 

(Romans 3:25 NA28)

Arnold, Matthieu. “Luther on Christ’s Person and Work.” Pages 274–93 in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology. Edited by Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka. First. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Bertram, Martin H. Sermons on the Gospel of St. John Chapters 1-4. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan. Vol. 22. 82 vols. Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1957.

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 840.

Luther, Martin. “A Meditation on Christ’s Passion.” Pages 1–8 in Devotional Writings I. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Martin O. Dietrich. Vol. 42. 55 vols. Digital Edition. Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. http://www.lutheranmissiology.org/Luther%20Meditate%20Passion%20of%20Christ.pdf.

———. “A Meditation on Christ’s Passion.” Pages 7–14 in Devotional Writings I. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Martin O. Dietrich. Vol. 42. 55 vols. Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

Mattes, Mark. “Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka, First. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 267-268

Mullet, Michael A. Martin Luther. Routledge Historical Biographies. London ; New York: Routledge, 2004.

Plathow, Michael. “‘Der Geköderte Leviathan’: Martin Luthers Kreuzestheologische Metapher in Der Römisch-Katholischen Theologie Und Ihre Konfessionskundlich-Ökumenische Bedeutung.” Lutherjahrbuch 70 (2003): 127–47.

Spitz, Lewis William. “Luther’s Concept of the Atonement before 1517.” Concordia Theol. Mon. 21.3 (1950): 165–80.