Thread: Luther and TULIP

I've been reading through "On Christian Liberty" by Luther and I read a passage that almost gave me whiplash, (if reading can do that to you!) On pg. 29 of my copy Luther says: "Should he [the christian] grow so foolish, how ever, as to presume to become righteous, free, saved, and a Christian by means of some good work, he would instantly lose faith and all its benefits, a foolishness aptly illustrated in the fable of the dog who runs along a stream whit a piece of meat in his mouth and, deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, opens his mouth to snap at it and so loses both the meat and the reflection. " emphasis mine.

So would Luther leave the "P" out of TULIP? What do ya'll think?

Originally Posted by Hamalas

I've been reading through "On Christian Liberty" by Luther and I read a passage that almost gave me whiplash, (if reading can do that to you!) On pg. 29 of my copy Luther says: "Should he [the christian] grow so foolish, how ever, as to presume to become righteous, free, saved, and a Christian by means of some good work, he would instantly lose faith and all its benefits, a foolishness aptly illustrated in the fable of the dog who runs along a stream whit a piece of meat in his mouth and, deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, opens his mouth to snap at it and so loses both the meat and the reflection. " emphasis mine.

So would Luther leave the "P" out of TULIP? What do ya'll think?

Yes, illogically so. According to my understanding of it, Lutherans would deny Perseverance of the Saints by implication anyway, due to their belief in baptismal regeneration. There's a sense in which they believe Baptism regenerates a child, but there are clearly Lutheran babies who grow up and apostatize; therefore, they lose what Lutherans say their children gain in baptism (i.e. regeneration). I may have said it sloppily, though. If so, just ignore me.

Kevin (staphlobob) may be able to shed a little light on the matter.

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by Hamalas

I've been reading through "On Christian Liberty" by Luther and I read a passage that almost gave me whiplash, (if reading can do that to you!) On pg. 29 of my copy Luther says: "Should he [the christian] grow so foolish, how ever, as to presume to become righteous, free, saved, and a Christian by means of some good work, he would instantly lose faith and all its benefits, a foolishness aptly illustrated in the fable of the dog who runs along a stream whit a piece of meat in his mouth and, deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, opens his mouth to snap at it and so loses both the meat and the reflection. " emphasis mine.

So would Luther leave the "P" out of TULIP? What do ya'll think?

Yes, illogically so. According to my understanding of it, Lutherans would deny Perseverance of the Saints by implication anyway, due to their belief in baptismal regeneration. There's a sense in which they believe Baptism regenerates a child, but there are clearly Lutheran babies who grow up and apostatize; therefore, they lose what Lutherans say their children gain in baptism (i.e. regeneration). I may have said it sloppily, though. If so, just ignore me.

Kevin (staphlobob) may be able to shed a little light on the matter.

Wow. Joshua, I did not know that Lutherans believed in baptismal regeneration. Did Luther himself believe that as well? I learn something new here every day.

The Lutheran would tell you that God on the occasion of baptism regenerates the individual. Not that the act of baptism itself regenerates the individual. A small but important point.

Originally Posted by joshua

According to my understanding of it, Lutherans would deny Perseverance of the Saints by implication anyway, due to their belief in baptismal regeneration.

Many may, I'm not sure on the numbers. Just a few days ago, I had lunch with a Lutheran pastor who told me he affirmed the "P", although he didn't explicitly say it that way. The whole time I was eating with him, he kept coming off as a closet Calvinist!

The quote from Luther is consistent with the doctrine of Perseverance so long as Irresistible Grace is also assumed. Yes, hypothetically, if a believer were to stop trusting solely in the merits of Christ for their salvation and start attributing some of the glory to their own good works, they would lose their salvation. So if a man currently ascribes his salvation to himself we can assume him unsaved, even if a some point in the past he asserted his belief in grace alone and faith alone. The question is, can a man be truly saved and then cease to believe the true Gospel? I'm not sure it's a point that Luther addresses in this passage.

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by Hamalas

I've been reading through "On Christian Liberty" by Luther and I read a passage that almost gave me whiplash, (if reading can do that to you!) On pg. 29 of my copy Luther says: "Should he [the christian] grow so foolish, how ever, as to presume to become righteous, free, saved, and a Christian by means of some good work, he would instantly lose faith and all its benefits, a foolishness aptly illustrated in the fable of the dog who runs along a stream whit a piece of meat in his mouth and, deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, opens his mouth to snap at it and so loses both the meat and the reflection. " emphasis mine.

So would Luther leave the "P" out of TULIP? What do ya'll think?

Yes, illogically so. According to my understanding of it, Lutherans would deny Perseverance of the Saints by implication anyway, due to their belief in baptismal regeneration. There's a sense in which they believe Baptism regenerates a child, but there are clearly Lutheran babies who grow up and apostatize; therefore, they lose what Lutherans say their children gain in baptism (i.e. regeneration). I may have said it sloppily, though. If so, just ignore me.

Kevin (staphlobob) may be able to shed a little light on the matter.

Though I'm not familiar with that particular quote from Luther, it is a fact that Lutherans hold to baptismal regeneration (as did Luther).

yes they do believe in baptism regeneration however it is not the same as in roman catholicism or the church of Christ. I just think its hard to nail Luther down (no pun intended with the word nail) on any point of theology except sola fide and the bondage of the will.

It is also a bit anachronistic to look for the specifics of TULIP in Luther. These issues weren't hashed out until after his time. However, his Bondage of the Will screams Calvinism before its time.

As an aside, don't we find Augustine asserting baptismal regeneration too.

Yes, Augustine does. I once read something he wrote on predestination where he affirmed this and said that the fact that an infant was baptized was evidence of its election. I'm not sure how he handled apostasy.

Here are some links to Luther's Small and Large Catechism:
The Small Catechism by Martin Luther
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - The Large Catechism

If you go to the above links, you can read what Luther said about baptism. Luther believed that baptism is a combination of both water and the word of God. As an infant is baptized, the word of God comes to him and regenerates him. Luther did not believe that water itself works some kind of magic to regenerate people. Luther believed that baptism is God's work, not man's work. Since Luther believed that baptism was God's work, he did not see baptism as some man-made work that merits salvation.

According to the quote found in the OP, it seems that Luther would deny the perseverance of the saints.

Originally Posted by Hamalas

I've been reading through "On Christian Liberty" by Luther and I read a passage that almost gave me whiplash, (if reading can do that to you!) On pg. 29 of my copy Luther says: "Should he [the christian] grow so foolish, how ever, as to presume to become righteous, free, saved, and a Christian by means of some good work, he would instantly lose faith and all its benefits, a foolishness aptly illustrated in the fable of the dog who runs along a stream whit a piece of meat in his mouth and, deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, opens his mouth to snap at it and so loses both the meat and the reflection. " emphasis mine.

So would Luther leave the "P" out of TULIP? What do ya'll think?

Definitely not. He is speaking hypothetically. Luther is just making his normal, bold, black and white analysis of the incompatability between works righteousness and the righteousness imputed by Christ. For a believer to turn to works for righteousness implies a turning from faith in the finished work of Christ for righteousness, and the benefits thereof. Scripture speaks hypothetically in the same way in II Pet.2:20-22; and I Jn.2:19 of professed believers who deserted Christ.

Blessings!

Charles,

I'm not so sure that he's being hypothetical. Here's something I found regarding Luther, quoted from Pelikan:

Luther's understanding of perseverance clearly bears marks of the Roman Catholic tradition and yet differs from it on the key point of the believer's present certitude of the experience of grace. In the context of a late medieval Church whose theology and practices mitigated against such certitude, Luther is horrified that the pope "should have entirely prohibited the certainty and assurance of divine grace." [17] The preacher's essential task is to make the hearers sure of their salvation. "If you want to preach to a person in a comforting way," urged Luther in a midweek sermon on Matt 18:21-22, "then do it so that he who hears you is certain that he is in God's favor, or be silent altogether." [18] Preachers who make their hearers doubt are "good for nothing." Assurance that one is presently in a state of grace is foundational to the Christian life. "I must be able to say," stated the great reformer, "I know that I have a gracious God and that my works, performed in this faith and according to this Word, are good fruits and are pleasing to Him." [19]

A sermon that assures the believer of how he stands with God is true and presents the pure word of Christ. A sermon that fails to do this is "a lie and the devil's doctrine," and such preachers may as well be the "devil's confessor" and a "preacher in the abyss of hell." [20] Luther was hardly one to mince his words on this point.

Like Augustine, Luther believed that regeneration occurred through the waters of baptism. "But," noted the Reformer, "all of us do not remain with our baptism. Many fall away from Christ and become false Christians." [21] In his commentary on 2 Pet 2:22 he writes as follows on apostates in the Church: "Through baptism these people threw out unbelief, had their unclean way of life washed away, and entered into a pure life of faith and love. Now they fall away into unbelief and their own works, and they soil themselves again in filth." [22]

One who has experienced the justifying grace of God through faith can lose that justification through unbelief or false confidence in works. "Indeed,
even the righteous man," writes Luther in his comments on Gal 5:4, "if he presumes to be justified by those works, loses the righteousness he has and falls from the grace by which he had been justified, since he has been removed from a good land to one that is barren." [23]

Martin Luther shared with the Roman Catholic Church of his day the belief that the grace of baptismal regeneration and justification could be lost. On these points he was in agreement with Augustine and Aquinas. Where he differed was on the matter of assurance, being more confident than the Catholic tradition of his time that the believer could enjoy great certitude of his present state of grace. Whether the believer, now in a state of grace, would remain in grace to the end was for Luther an open question. On the one hand, so far as God is concerned Luther believed that the heavenly Father desired the believer's eternal salvation in Christ. Nevertheless from the believer's side it is possible to turn aside from the grace of God and be lost, even after the pilgrimage has begun. Consequently the believer must always take heed lest he fall. [24]

This same tension on the matter of final perseverance -- "secure in Christ, insecure in one's self' -- is also reflected in the Lutheran confessions of the sixteenth century. On the one hand, article 12 of the Augsburg Confession of 1530 condemns the anabaptist teaching that once justified, the believer cannot lose the Spirit of God. [25] In the Lutheran view, final apostasy is a genuine possibility for the baptized and justified believer. One the other hand, while the contents of God's eternal decree of election are known infallibly only to God, the believer, by focusing on Jesus Christ as preached in the gospel and presented by the promises of Scripture, can find "sweet consolation" in "this most wholesome doctrine" of predestination, according to the Formula of Concord of 1584. Through present and lively faith in the Christ of the gospel "we are rendered certain that by mere grace, without any merit of our own, we are chosen in Christ to eternal life, and that no one can pluck us out of his hands." [26] There is paradox, then, in the Lutheran understanding of final perseverance. While the matter is theoretically uncertain, for a believer it can become existentially certain, to the extent that the believer maintains unwavering faith in the promises of the gospel and so grows in confidence that he has in fact been included in God's gracious election to salvation.

Thanks, Davidius! I greatly appreciate your post here! From what I've read of Luther's Works, I, personally, have not come across anything as of yet like these Luther quotes from Pelikan having that spin on them. I know he was the General Editor of Luther's Works in 1955 and also was a Graduate of a Lutheran Seminary. Bondage of the Will seemed to me to lay a foundation of a principle contrary to it. I'd be interested in knowing which writings of Luther these quotes are taken from, as perhaps they might be footnoted in your source. Thanks again for your kindness in striving to direct me towards a more accurate understanding. May you do so again as you perceive necessary.

Blessings to you and yours!

Dear Charles,

First I will link you to the page where I found the above text: The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine by John Jefferson Davis (1991 JETS)

Citation 21 comes from a citation in Plass, What Luther Says, 1:280, Concordia Publishing House

Citations 22 and 23 come from Pelikan (ed.), Luther's Works, volumes 27 and 30, Concordia Publishing House

Citation 25 comes from the Augsburg Confession, article 12. I have it here in front of me (Tappert (ed.), The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Fortress Press). Article 12, section 7 states:

Rejected here are those who teach that persons who have once become godly cannot fall again.

The wording is slightly different in the version at Bookofconcord.org, which states:

They [our churches] condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost.

It may be that one of these is the Latin version and the other the German - I'm not sure. They seem to say basically the same thing, though.

Blessings

Originally Posted by cih1355

Here are some links to Luther's Small and Large Catechism:
The Small Catechism by Martin Luther
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - The Large Catechism

If you go to the above links, you can read what Luther said about baptism. Luther believed that baptism is a combination of both water and the word of God. As an infant is baptized, the word of God comes to him and regenerates him. Luther did not believe that water itself works some kind of magic to regenerate people. Luther believed that baptism is God's work, not man's work. Since Luther believed that baptism was God's work, he did not see baptism as some man-made work that merits salvation.

Correct. Luther (and Lutherans) hold that baptism is water and God's Word combined. And only through faith can baptism work. Hence in their theology, even a baby can have faith.

In opposition to this is the papist teaching that baptism is magic; that it works ex opere operato (by the work worked). Say the right words, do the right actions, use the right materials and - presto! - there's a new creation.

Originally Posted by Staphlobob

In opposition to this is the papist teaching that baptism is magic; that it works ex opere operato (by the work worked).

And, as a qualification, I didn't mean to imply any strong similarity between Rome's understanding of the efficacy of Baptism (in itself) and Lutheranism's (God's Word via the instrument of Baptism) in my earlier post.

Nonetheless, it still shows an implicit denial of Perseverance of the Saints.

Originally Posted by Staphlobob

Correct. Luther (and Lutherans) hold that baptism is water and God's Word combined. And only through faith can baptism work. Hence in their theology, even a baby can have faith.

In opposition to this is the papist teaching that baptism is magic; that it works ex opere operato (by the work worked). Say the right words, do the right actions, use the right materials and - presto! - there's a new creation.

Luther's position is also the position of many high Church Anglicans. Those that hold the papist view I call Anglo Romish not Anglo Catholic