Luther's "Calvinism"? (Part One)

JS: Over on the blog sidebar there's a link to a paper entitled, Luther's Calvinism? Is Luther's Doctrine of Predestination "Reformed"?  This paper was put together back in 2011. Currently, it's available via the Internet Archive. The plan is to post it in sections here on the blog proper.   

Was Luther a "Good Calvinist"? 

There appears to be nothing more infuriating to a Lutheran than to suggest that Luther was fundamentally a "Calvinist" in his view of sovereignty and predestination. Back in 2009, Executive Director of Concordia Publishing House Reverend Paul McCain wrote, 

“Whenever the question of why are some saved and not others comes up, it is common for Calvinists who advocate for the view that God has predestined some to hell, and others to heaven, to try to drag Martin Luther into their argument and claim that they are actually being faithful to what Martin Luther taught. Let this much be clear: Martin Luther did not teach double-predestination”[1].

McCain could have any number of Reformed authors in mind. For instance, in his book Chosen By God, R.C. Sproul lays out his past intellectual resistance to the doctrine of predestination. “My struggle with predestination began early in my Christian life. I knew a professor of philosophy in college who was a convinced Calvinist. He set forth the so-called ‘Reformed’ view of predestination. I did not like it. I did not like it at all. I fought against it tooth and nail all the way through college”[2]. Part of Sproul’s argumentation for eventually embracing the Reformed view includes a list comparing those who held a similar Reformed type of predestination view against those who do not. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards are stacked against Pelagius, Arminius, Melanchthon, Wesley, and Finny. Sproul points out that such a comparison doesn’t prove one view correct over the other, but “we must take seriously the fact that such learned men agreed on this difficult subject” [3]. Sproul states,

It is important for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestination was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in Calvin’s view of predestination that was not earlier propounded by Luther and Augustine before him. Later, Lutheranism did not follow Luther on this matter but Melanchthon, who altered his views after Luther’s death. It is also noteworthy that in his famous treatise on theology, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote sparingly on the subject. Luther wrote more about predestination than did Calvin [4].

Luther wrote more about predestination than Calvin? Melanchthon altered the Lutheran view on predestination for subsequent Lutherans? Such statements could easily lead to equivocating Luther and Calvin’s view of predestination, as well as Luther’s view with the so-called "five points of Calvinism."  Some in the Reformed camp have done precisely this. Lorraine Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination asserts Luther “went into the doctrine as heartily as did Calvin himself” and “He even asserted it with more warmth and proceeded to much harsher lengths in defending it than Calvin ever did.”[5]. Duane Edward Spencer’s popular primer on Calvinism places Luther among those “stalwart theologians” that have held “to the precious doctrines of grace known as Calvinism”[6] Edwin Palmer’s introduction to Calvinism refers to Luther as a “good Calvinist.”[7] The classic Steele and Thomas overview of Calvinism includes Luther as a champion listed on the “role call of Calvinists.”[8]

This series of blog entries will examine Luther’s views compared to the Reformed doctrine of predestination, giving attention as well to the Calvinistic slogans of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, effectual calling, and perseverance. While Luther’s theology may be Reformation theology, it is not Reformed theology. If one fails to take into account Luther’s underlying presuppositions as well as his explicit statements on predestination, the atonement, perseverance, etc., blatant errors against his theology occur. While there are similarities between Luther’s views and the Reformed view, important differences still separate both sides. When the Reformed haphazardly appeal to Luther as one of her own, they do so at the expense of historical accuracy.

Notes

1. Paul McCain, Refuting Calvinist Claims that Luther Taught Double Predestination, available from the Internet Archive.

2. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 11-12.

3. Ibid., p. 15.

4. Ibid.

5. Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932), 1.

6. Duane Edward Spencer, Tulip: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1979), 6-7.

7. Edward H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1980), 19.

8. David Steele, and Curtis Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, and Documented (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2004), 74.

 

Luther vs. Reformed Theology: On Losing Salvation and the Sin of Unbelief

Some years back I did a blog entry entitled, Did Luther Believe Salvation Can Be Lost? In that entry, I noted the following Luther quote:

Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins, so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because he cannot deny himself if you confess him and faithfully cling to him in his promise. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction, along with all those carefully devised exercises of men: if you rely on them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is clone without faith in God’s truth is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit [Eccles. 1:2, 14]" [LW 36: 60].

An interesting historical analysis of this quote can be found here. A Lutheran recently left a portion of this quote in the comment section under the same entry stating,

Having graduated from a Lutheran seminary, this is the position of the Lutheran Church. It is different than Wesleyism in the sense that it does not teach that one loses their salvation because of sin, but that sin may have such an effect on a person that one may lose their faith, thus, coming to a place of unbelief!

I'm bringing this up simply to point out a significant difference between Luther and Reformed theology that is often overlooked from the Reformed side.  Note the following difference between Luther's quote, the Lutheran comment, and the following from R.C. Sproul. Note how Sproul connects the sin of unbelief to limited atonement:

However, the overwhelming majority of Christians who reject limited atonement also reject universal salvation. They are particularists, not universalists. They insist on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. That is, only believers are saved by the atonement of Christ. If that is so, then the atonement, in some sense, must be limited, or restricted, to a definite group, namely believers. If Christ died for all of the sins of all people, that must include the sin of unbelief. If God’s justice is totally satisfied by Christ’s work on the cross, then it would follow that God would be unjust in punishing the unrepentant sinner for his unbelief and impenitence because those sins were already paid for by Christ.

See also, this comment from Dr. Sproul. This is popular Reformed argumentation.  Note A.W. Pink's construction of it:

If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, then the sin of unbelief was too. That unbelief is a sin is clear from the fact that in 1 John 3:23 we read, "And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ." Refusal to believe in Christ is, therefore, an act of flagrant disobedience, rebellion against the Most High. But if all the sins of all men were laid upon Christ (as it is now asserted), then He also endured the penalty for the Christ-rejector's unbelief. If this be so, then Universalism is true. But it is not so. The very advocates of the view we are now refuting would not affirm it. And therein may be seen the inconsistency and untenableness of their teaching. For if unbelief is a sin and Christ did not suffer the penalty of it, then all sin was not laid upon Christ. Thus there are only two alternatives: a strictly limited Atonement, availing only for believers; or an unlimited Atonement which effectually secures the salvation of the entire human race.

See also John Owen's construction of the argument.

So, the moral of this story is that Calvinists should careful with Luther, and also be prepared for a long and tedious discussions with Lutherans on the extent of the atonement, and the meaning of the atonement.

Martin Luther Teaching on Limited Atonement?

Here's a video I came across while searching for something else:



This video blogger asserts that "John Calvin was Martin Luther's greatest student."  Calvin held Luther in high regard and there certainly are a number of theological agreements between these two men. But I would not go so far as to suggest, as this video blogger does, that Calvin followed Luther's view on the extent of the atonement as his greatest student.  There's stronger evidence that suggests that it was, to a large extent, fellow Reformer Martin Bucer and an Augustian tradition that influenced Calvin on the extent of the atonement, not Luther.

The debate over the historicity of the doctrine of limited atonement is complex. It's actually more complex in regard to Calvin's view rather than Luther's. There are a number of scholars who argue Calvin did not hold to the doctrine of limited atonement. Then there are a number who argue the contrary. There are also typically two sorts of people who get involved with this controversy. Those in the first group are interested in history and in following the strands of evidence wherever it leads. They can either be Reformed or non-Reformed, and they can arrive at either position regarding Calvin's view. In the second group are those who are looking to refute Reformed soteriology by arguing Calvin himself did not hold to limited atonement (i.e. Geisler, etc.).

Jonathan Rainbow points out, "There is no single place where Calvin addressed the extent of Christ's redemption in a systematic fashion" (The Will of God and the Cross, p. 64). This means that each group of scholars arrives at their conclusion based on exegeting the strands of evidence throughout Calvin's writings. Rainbow points out that Calvin was never involved in any controversies involving the extent of the atonement. As far as I know, neither was Luther. This certainly means it requires much more work to sort out their views. Certainly by the late Sixteenth Century Lutheranism opposed limited atonement, while the Reformed tradition by the early Seventeenth Century embraced it with confessional statements (Rainbow, pp. 181-182).  For what it's worth, I think Rainbow has presented one of the best constructed non-polemical treatments of Calvin's view.

If Calvin's view requires a lot of work to figure out, the evidence in regard to Luther's view is even more difficult to sift through. The simple truth is that, contrary to my Reformed brethren, Luther's writings are not filled with comments about predestination, election, and the extent of the atonement. Certainly Luther's Bondage of the Will gets involved with predestination, but if you set out to read Luther writings you'll find that these soteriological issues so important to Reformed theology don't get center stage in Luther's treatises.  

This video-blogger cites Luther’s early work on Romans. There Luther comments on “God will have all men saved” (1 Tim 2:4). He says that sayings 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. But here's the crucial factor, as I see it:  Other than this pre-reformation comment, there is no other evidence I know of 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.

I maintain that it appears, based explicitly on this one quote, and implicitly from Luther's early work on Romans, that limited atonement was an early view Luther held. His later writings strongly imply a different conclusion on the extent of the atonement. Those people (particularly Reformed people) use the Romans commentary quote at the expense of Luther's entire written corpus, thus caricaturing his view. It is typically the only quote they use, and I challenge them to search through Luther's writings to find another. I certainly would be interested in any quotes they find... I'm doubtful though anything like Luther's Romans quote exists.

Luther Wrote More on Predestination than Calvin?

This is an abridged excerpt from a paper I recently put together:

There appears to be nothing more infuriating to a Lutheran than to suggest that Luther was fundamentally a Calvinist in his view of sovereignty and predestination. Executive Director of Concordia Publishing House Reverend Paul McCain states, “Whenever the question of why are some saved and not others comes up, it is common for Calvinists who advocate for the view that God has predestined some to hell, and others to heaven, to try to drag Martin Luther into their argument and claim that they are actually being faithful to what Martin Luther taught. Let this much be clear: Martin Luther did not teach double-predestination.”[1]

McCain could have any number of Reformed authors in mind. In his book Chosen By God, R.C. Sproul lays out his past intellectual resistance to the doctrine of predestination. “My struggle with predestination began early in my Christian life. I knew a professor of philosophy in college who was a convinced Calvinist. He set forth the so-called ‘Reformed’ view of predestination. I did not like it. I did not like it at all. I fought against it tooth and nail all the way through college.”[2] Part of Sproul’s argumentation for eventually embracing the Reformed view includes a list comparing those who hold similar Reformed-esque views against those who do not. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards are stacked against Pelagius, Arminius, Melanchthon, Wesley, and Finny. Sproul points out that such a comparison doesn’t prove one view correct over the other, but “we must take seriously the fact that such learned men agreed on this difficult subject.”[3] Sproul states,

It is important for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestination was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in Calvin’s view of predestination that was not earlier propounded by Luther and Augustine before him. Later, Lutheranism did not follow Luther on this matter but Melanchthon, who altered his views after Luther’s death. It is also noteworthy that in his famous treatise on theology, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote sparingly on the subject. Luther wrote more about predestination than did Calvin.[4]

Luther wrote more about predestination than Calvin? Melanchthon altered Luther’s view on predestination for subsequent Lutherans? Such statements could easily lead to equivocating Luther and Calvin’s view of predestination, as well as Luther’s view with the so-called five points of Calvinism. Some in the Reformed camp have done precisely this. Lorraine Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination asserts Luther “went into the doctrine as heartily as did Calvin himself” and “He even asserted it with more warmth and proceeded to much harsher lengths in defending it than Calvin ever did.”[5] Duane Edward Spencer’s popular primer on Calvinism places Luther among those “stalwart theologians” that have held “to the precious doctrines of grace known as Calvinism.”[6] Edwin Palmer’s introduction to Calvinism refers to Luther as a “good Calvinist.”[7] The classic Steele and Thomas overview of Calvinism includes Luther as a champion listed on the “role call of Calvinists.”[8]

Sproul probably isn’t in error in his claim that Luther wrote more about predestination than Calvin did in his Institutes, if indeed Sproul is comparing this to The Bondage of the Will. Throughout his career though, Calvin did indeed write more on the subject than Luther did. After his Bondage of the Will, only a handful of brief statements can be corralled together. Sproul isn’t alone in making such comparative claims. One of the more extensive studies on Luther and Predestination was put together by Harry Buis “especially concentrating on the demonstration of the fact that Martin Luther held as strong a doctrine of predestination as did John Calvin.”[40] Buis strains every statement from Luther he can find through a Reformed paradigm. Buis claims Luther made a number of statements on the “main points of Calvinism” “which were more extreme than any which Calvin ever made.”[41] Many of the statements Buis compiled though speak only of Luther’s lifelong belief that the human will was enslaved, a topic often addressed by Luther. He spends considerable time with the Bondage of the Will, but avoids any full discussion of Luther’s paradigm of the hidden / revealed God. Buis will take the most meager statement as proof for Luther’s Calvinism. For instance, Of 2 Peter 3:9, Buis says Luther questioned if Peter actually wrote it. This serves as proof for Luther’s Calvinism! Rather though, Luther was probably alluding to the doubts of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, ch. 3, par. 1. Luther actually states of 2 Peter, “Yet it is credible that this is nonetheless the apostle’s letter.”[42] Buis cites extensively from Luther’s pre-Reformation commentary on Romans, yet this writing precedes Luther’s paradox of the hidden / revealed God, and also stems from a time in which Luther himself was plagued by doubts about his own predestination. Buis then concludes his treatment of Luther with a number of citations from Luther’s Table Talk, a writing not from Luther’s hand. While having good intentions, Buis demonstrates that those from a Reformed perspective need to be careful with contexts, not allowing one’s own theological paradigms to interfere with reading texts accurately.

But not all from a Reformed perspective are so haphazard with Luther. Herman Bavinck posits much differently than Buis: “Luther accordingly, increasingly avoided the speculative doctrine of predestination, the will of divine good pleasure, the hidden God, preferring to focus on the ministry of Word and sacraments, to which grace is bound, and giving increasing prominence to God’s universal redemptive will, his expressed will.”[43] After sifting through the statements culled together by Buis, Bavinck appears to be correct. Luther’s later statements about predestination have more of a pastoral emphasis rather than polemical.

Footnotes
[1] Paul McCain, Refuting Calvinist Claims that Luther Taught Double Predestination, available from: http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/12/16/refuting-calvinist-claims-that-luther-taught-double-predestination//
[2] R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 11-12.
[3] Ibid., 15.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932), 1.
[6] Duane Edward Spencer, Tulip: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1979), 6-7.
[7] Edward H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1980), 19.
[8] David Steele, and Curtis Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, and Documented (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2004), 74.
[40] Harry Buis, Historic Protestantism and Predestination (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1958), 2.
[41] Ibid., 61.
[42] LW 30: 198.
[43] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 356.

Addendum: Here's an interesting discussion on the Puritan board- http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/calvinism-lutheranism-67871/

Luther on Limited Atonement Revisited

There is a popular quote (as found on websites like these) from Luther in which he appears to advocate limited atonement:

“God will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), and he gave his Son for us men, and he created man for the sake of eternal life. And likewise: Everything is there for man’s sake and he is there for God’s sake in order that he may enjoy him, etc. But this objection [to God's sovereignty in salvation] and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect [emphasis in original], as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24)- he did not say: for all- “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). [Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, translated and edited by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 252.]

This quote comes from an early writing of Luther's. I have gone on record stating those using this quote to prove Luther's view of limited atonement do so incorrectly. I've never found any evidence that Luther maintained such a view throughout his life on the extent of the atonement.

A blog visitor left a recent comment and url about Luther's view of the atonement:

I have heard you mention before that the only time Luther taught limited atonement was in his 1515 Romans lectures, but I found some evidence that he held on to that view at least a few years later. Just something I thought may help in your Luther research.

Thanks for thinking of me. I always appreciate tidbits like these. As a point of clarification, my position is not "the only time Luther taught limited atonement was in his 1515 Romans lectures." What I maintain is that it appears limited atonement was an early view Luther held. His later writings strongly imply a different conclusion on the extent of the atonement. Those people (particularly Reformed people) use the Romans commentary quote at the expense of Luther's entire written corpus, thus caricaturing his view. It is typically the only quote they use (probably because it's the only one they can find, and I unfortunately doubt they're actually looking).

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.[source]

Tedium & Bibliographic Information
Not meaning to nitpick, but the reference is incorrect. The quote is from volume 3.2, not volume 3.1. Each of the first four volumes of the 2000 reprint (which I believe you're using) contain two books in one. Indeed, there isn't a sermon date, yet another problem with Lenker's series. As the editors of Luther's Works point out, Lenker's edition of the postil was "translated uncritically and inadequately"(introduction, LW 51). Lenker ironically foresaw such a criticism. He explains in his own introduction that "Unmerciful critics will be heard from in due time" as to his translation and collection (Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 1.1, p.7). If one reads through both Lenker's introduction as well as that in LW 51, you'll see the incredible mountain of trouble a translator and editor has when undertaking the task of producing a critical version of Luther's Church Postil. That being said, I treasure Lenker's collection, and appreciate his efforts!

The sermon in question ("Third Christmas Sermon") can be found here. From Lenker's and LW's introductory material, the Christmas sermons date from 1521-1522: "Luther wrote the Christmas and Advent postils (in that order) at the Wartburg in 1521 and these appeared in print in 1522" (LW 51). Is this sermon from this time period? I can't say for sure. The Postil went through many revisions, even during Luther's lifetime. This question can only be answered by a true Luther scholar.

The Luther Quote & Context
Luther's sermon was on Hebrews 1:1-12. He's expounding on verse 3 "who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

32. 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. Nor did Christ effect the cleansing by our free-will, our reason or power, our works, our contrition or repentance, these all being worthless in the sight of God’, he effects it by himself. And how? By taking our sins upon himself on the holy cross, as Isaiah 53:6 tells us.
33. But even this answer does not sufficiently explain how he cleanses us “by himself.” To go further: When we accept him, when we believe he has purified us, he dwells within us because of, and by, our faith, daily continuing to cleanse us by his own operation; and nothing apart from Christ in any way contributes to the purification of our sins. Note, he does not dwell in us, nor work our cleansing through himself, by any other way than in and through our faith. [source]

When Reformed people typically speak of limited atonement, they're seeking to determine the extent of the atonement. That is, did Christ die for all people, or a particular set of people? I submit the Luther quote in question doesn't answer in the way his early Romans Commentary quote does. He earlier clearly outlines extent: "Christ did not die for absolutely all." His point in this Christmas sermon is that the atonement is effectual for believers: "Purification is not for, and cannot profit, him who does not believe," "When we accept him, when we believe he has purified us."

An interesting question that I don't have the answer to would be: when did Luther's view shift? I admit to not studying this issue with the depth needed to provide a satisfactory answer. If
this sermon does date from 1521-1522, one would need only to search through Luther's writings from this period to see if he comments on the extent of the atonement. In The Sermons of Martin Luther 1.1 p. 132 (Fourth Sunday in Advent), Luther states, "He alone must take upon himself not only your sins, but the sins of the world, and not some sins, but all the sins of the world, be they great or small, many or few." The Advent sermons are likewise said to be dated from the same time period.

Addendum: Luther Atonement Quotes
"[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" [WA 37: 201, Sermon for first Sunday in Advent, 1533]. [Day by Day We Magnify Thee, p. 1]

Luther's (~)Calvinism, a Follow Up

I have a few follow up comments on my recent discussion "Did Martin Luther Believe in the Reformed Tulip?"

I received a kind review over on another blog from Marcus McElhaney, of which I'm grateful. I thank everyone who listened, for listening. I had a few points of clarification for one of the issues Marcus raised, as well as some of the comments left here.

As to my material on Luther's Book, The Bondage of The Will, Marcus states, "I agreed with Swan about how he see the book. The one one thing is that i would not say that Luther was paradoxical in that book I thought he was clear." I haven't listened back to the interview, but I don't recall saying that Luther was paradoxical in this book. I recall raising the issue of paradox during my discussion of the hidden vs revealed God. However paradox will always be at the base of Luther's thought on this, and I think if we were to go slowly through the book, we could uncover Luther's use of paradox. Indeed, Luther was clear as to his view, but in working out how to understand the inner workings of predestination, Luther will use paradox.

Jordan points out, "Swan seemed to think that election could be lost" according to Luther. Actually, I recall in the interview saying Luther held God chooses some to be saved and he rejects the others without an apparent reason within them for either choice. He gives faith to one person through the working of His Spirit; and he refuses to give faith to others so that they remain bound in their unbelief. This means an unconditional, eternal predestination both to salvation and to damnation. However, Luther usually attributes such to speculating about the hidden God, which he strongly urges his readers not to do. Luther himself doesn't spend a lot of time doing such. Here I would disagree with R.C. Sproul, whom (if I recall correctly) has stated that Luther spent more time discussing predestination than Calvin did. This is simply not the case.

On the other hand, Luther says things like, "Ye are fallen from grace," must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection."

I admit to not exactly understanding how Luther reconciles this, but then again, I'm thinking in Reformed categories, not Luther's categories. I have a feeling Luther would simply affirm both statements. My studies on these issues concerning Luther were largely influenced by looking into his paradox of the hidden vs. revealed God. As far as I understand his views, they are largely informed and understood via paradox,the rejection of the medieval use of ergo, and embracing the conclusion, nevertheless.

Similarly, as to Luther on irresistible grace, I recall presenting two Luther quotes, and the host Chris Arnzen concluded that Luther denied irresistible grace. I didn't voice my opinion. The problem is, we're sticking Luther in Reformed categories. I think Luther did hold that it’s God’s eternal election and predestination that draw His people to Him. In one of his early Reformation writings he says, "The best and infallible preparation and the only disposition toward grace are the eternal election and predestination of God," and I think I used that quote during the interview. I then followed it up with another quote from Luther, "It is, nevertheless God’s earnest will and purpose, indeed, His command, decreed from eternity, to save all men."

Once again, I think paradox is at work. One of the books that influenced me on understanding Luther's view is Siegbert Becker's The Foolishness of God: The Place of Reason in the Theology of Martin Luther (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1999 (2nd edition). I highly recommend this book for anyone wishing to explore Luther's categories.

"A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely... I forget everything about Christ and God when I come upon these thoughts and actually get to the point to imagining that God is a rogue. We must stay in the word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation is offered, if we believe him. But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election."- Martin Luther

As to disputing these issues, that's the thing Luther did with Erasmus, so he wasn't always consistent about this. I think the bottom line that separates Lutherans and Calvinists on this issue is, are these issues to be avoided entirely, or do they deserve to be looking into with care, fear, and a converted heart? I say yes, because the issues aren't hiding in the Bible. They're right out in the open, more than once, on multiple pages. Indeed, one shouldn't go beyond what the Scriptures say, but one shouldn't avoid what the Scriptures say either.

Did Luther Believe Salvation Can Be Lost?

I haven't come across a lot of material on whether or not Martin Luther believed a Christian can lose salvation.  It's not surprising to find quotes from him that appear to advocate a "perseverance of the saints" as well as quotes suggesting loss of salvation. On a basic contextual level, Luther's use of paradox does allow for such differing statements. I am aware that current Lutherans do say a Christian can "fall from faith." Also, I'm aware of statements like these saying similarly:

Although Luther agreed that the merits of Christ were the sole basis of a man’s justification, and that it did not depend in any way on a man’s deeds, Luther still thought that a man could lose his justification if he totally and finally turned away from Christ. Since God’s gift of forgiveness of sins and eternal life was appropriated by faith, if a man decided not to rest his eternal destiny in Christ, and totally turned against Him, Luther believed that only then would a man lose his salvation. In other words, the only sin that Luther thought would cause a man to lose his salvation was the sin of unrepentant apostasy (Catholics and Protestants: Do They Now Agree?, John Ankerberg and John Weldon).

I've followed the interpretive pack and have agreed that Luther held a Christian can actually lose salvation due to disbelief or a reliance on works righteousness. On the other hand, it really isn't as simple as some make it out to be. Many Lutherans are rightly agitated when the Reformed try to present Luther as a five-point Calvinist. However, I as a Reformed person tend to be agitated by those who ignore evidence, or don't ask interpretive questions about contexts. I'm particularly not fond of attempts to wiggle out of Luther's strong statements in The Bondage of the Will regarding predestination. I've had a few Lutherans tell me certain English translations of the book aren't accurate, or that Luther went too far, or that later in his life he took a different position. I'm well aware of Luther's many exhortations not to probe into the secret council of the hidden God, but as to doctored English translations and Luther changing his mind, I've not seen convincing proof.


Luther Believes in Losing Salvation
Here are a few Luther statements I've come across. This website, dedicated to advocating the possibility of a believer's loss of salvation uses the following statements from Luther (bolded emphasis theirs):

Even Martin Luther, who is claimed by Calvinists as one of their own, acknowledged the possibility of a Christian falling away into unbelief. Here are a few quotes, beginning with Luther's comment on the statement of the Lord's prayer, "lead us not into temptation."

"We have now heard enough what toil and labor is required to retain all that for which we pray, and to persevere therein, which, however, is not achieved without infirmities and stumbling. Besides, although we have received forgiveness and a good conscience and are entirely acquitted, yet is our life of such a nature that one stands to-day and to-morrow falls. Therefore, even though we be godly now and stand before God with a good conscience, we must pray again that He would not suffer us to relapse and yield to trials and temptations. ... Then comes the devil, inciting and provoking in all directions, but especially agitating matters that concern the conscience and spiritual affairs, namely, to induce us to despise and disregard both the Word and works of God to tear us away from faith, hope, and love and bring us into misbelief, false security, and obduracy, or, on the other hand, to despair, denial of God, blasphemy, and innumerable other shocking things. These are indeed snares and nets, yea, real fiery darts which are shot most venomously into the heart, not by flesh and blood, but by the devil. Great and grievous, indeed, are these dangers and temptations which every Christian must bear, even though each one were alone by himself, so that every hour that we are in this vile life where we are attacked on all sides, chased and hunted down, we are moved to cry out and to pray that God would not suffer us to become weary and faint and to relapse into sin, shame, and unbelief. For otherwise it is impossible to overcome even the least temptation. This, then, is leading us not into temptation, to wit, when He gives us power and strength to resist, the temptation, however, not being taken away or removed. For while we live in the flesh and have the devil about us, no one can escape temptation and allurements; and it cannot be otherwise than that we must endure trials, yea, be engulfed in them; but we pray for this, that we may not fall and be drowned in them." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism XII, On the Lord's Prayer, 6th Petition).

"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" (Martin Luther, Commentary on 2 Peter 2:22).

"Verse 4, "Ye are fallen from grace." That means you are no longer in the kingdom or condition of grace. When a person on board ship falls into the sea and is drowned it makes no difference from which end or side of the ship he falls into the water. Those who fall from grace perish no matter how they go about it. ... The words, "Ye are fallen from grace," must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation." (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, 5:4).

As to the first quote from Luther's Large Catechism, I don't see anything particularly against a saint persevering. In fact, if you note the words they emphasized (in black), the point being made is the Devil is he who seeks to "tear us away from faith, hope, and love and bring us into misbelief" and to the "denial of God [and] blasphemy."

As to the second quote from Luther's Commentary on 2 Peter 2:22, Luther is expounding on false teachers, and these he takes to be initially those from "the schools of higher learning." He describes them as having a false faith. He also will apply these verses to the papacy, monks, and priesthood. In commenting on "even denying the master who bough them," he states:

"Behold, what powerful words St. Peter uses! He says: “They deny the Master who bought them.” They should be under Him as under a Master who owns them. But now, even though they believe that He is a Lord who has ransomed all the world with His blood, yet they do not believe that they are ransomed and that He is their Master. They say that although He ransomed and redeemed them, this is not enough; one must first make amends and render satisfaction for sin with works. Then we say: “If you take away your sin yourself and wipe it out, what, then has Christ done? You surely cannot make two Christs who take away sin. He should, and wants to, be the only One who puts sin aside. If this is true, I cannot make bold to wipe out sin myself. But if I do this, I cannot say or believe that Christ takes it away.” This amounts to a denial of Christ. For even if they regard Christ as a Lord, yet they deny that He redeemed them" [LW 30:171].

The quote being utilized is tied together with Luther's understanding of baptism (which I've outlined here). It doesn't have anything to do with a Christian walking in true faith for countless years, and then losing that faith.

As to the third quote from Luther's Commentary on Galatians, this is the only bone given that has some meat on it. If one reads through the entire passage, it indeed does appear Luther's is saying that if one falls from grace, one loses salvation. Luther goes on to say:

These words, “You have fallen away from grace,” should not be looked at in a cool and careless way; for they are very emphatic. Whoever falls away from grace simply loses the propitiation, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, freedom, life, etc., which Christ earned for us by His death and resurrection; and in place of these he acquires the wrath and judgment of God, sin, death, slavery to the devil, and eternal damnation. This passage is a powerful support and reinforcement for our doctrine of faith or the doctrine of justification; and it gives us marvelous comfort against the ragings of the papists, who persecute and condemn us as heretics because we teach this doctrine. This passage really ought to strike terror into all the enemies of faith and grace, that is, all the partisans of works, to make them stop persecuting and blaspheming the Word of grace, life, and eternal salvation. But they are so calloused and obstinate that “seeing they do not see, and hearing”—this horrible sentence pronounced against them by the apostle—“they do not hear” (Matt. 13:13). Therefore let us let them alone, for they are blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 15:14) [LW 27:19].

Here's one other Luther quote I found being put forth on a Reformed web page, one wonders if a believer could actually chose unbelief (is Luther speaking rhetorically?):

Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins, so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because he cannot deny himself if you confess him and faithfully cling to him in his promise. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction, along with all those carefully devised exercises of men: if you rely on them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is clone without faith in God’s truth is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit [Eccles. 1:2, 14]" [LW 36: 60].

An interesting analysis of this quote can be found here. The quote though that settles the matter is article 40-43 of the Smalcald articles:

40 In the case of a Christian such repentance continues until death, for all through life it contends with the sins that remain in the flesh. As St. Paul testifies in Rom. 7:23, he wars with the law in his members, and he does this not with his own powers but with the gift of the Holy Spirit which follows the forgiveness of sins. This gift daily cleanses and expels the sins that remain and enables man to become truly pure and holy.

41 This is something about which the pope, the theologians, the jurists, and all men understand nothing. It is a teaching from heaven, revealed in the Gospel, and yet it is called a heresy by godless saints.

42 Some fanatics may appear (and perhaps they are already present, such as I saw with my own eyes at the time of the uprising)1 who hold that once they have received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or once they have become believers, they will persevere in faith even if they sin afterwards, and such sin will not harm them. They cry out, “Do what you will, it matters not as long as you believe, for faith blots out all sins,” etc. They add that if anyone sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never really had the Spirit and faith. I have encountered many foolish people like this and I fear that such a devil still dwells in some of them.

43 It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel original sin and daily repent and strive against it, fall into open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy), faith and the Spirit have departed from them.

44 This is so because the Holy Spirit does not permit sin to rule and gain the upper hand in such a way that sin is committed, but the Holy Spirit represses and restrains it so that it does not do what it wishes. If the sin does what it wishes, the Holy Spirit and faith are not present, 45 for St. John says, “No one born of God commits sin; he cannot sin.” Yet it is also true, as the same St. John writes, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

Luther Believes The Saints Will Persevere
Now, on the other hand, I recently read through Luther's sermons on John 17. Here are a few interesting quotes suggesting a perseverance of the faith in the heart of a true believer.

But to this He adds "to those whom You gave Me from the world." For just as no one reveals this and causes it to be preached except Him, so no one is able to understand or accept this revelation except those who have been given to Him. The rest despise it or take offense, persecute and blaspheme it. All this is now said for our sakes, who have the Word of Christ and cling to it. And it is an excellent, comforting text for all timid, fearful consciences,especially for those who are troubled and afflicted with high temptations concerning their predestination.

If anyone wants to know whether he is elect or how he stands with God, let him simply look to the mouth of Christ, namely, to this passage and ones like it. For though one cannot say with certainty who will be [called] in the future or who will finally endure, it is nonetheless certain that those who have been called and have come to hear this revelation (that is, Christ's Word), as long as they also accept it seriously (that is, they regard and believe it as entirely true). They are the ones given to Christ by the Father. Those who are given to Him He will uphold and protect so that they will not perish, as He says in John 6 [:39]: "This is the will of the Father, who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has 'given Me." And later in this chapter [John 17:12]: "Those whom You have given Me I have guarded, and not one of them has been lost except the son of perdition" Again, in John 10 [:28], He speaks of the sheep who hear His voice: "I give them eternal life. and they shall never perish, and no one shall tear them out of My hand."

For you must assuredly believe that there is no higher grace and divine work than that someone comes to hear the Word of Christ gladly with all his heart and takes it seriously, regarding it as great and precious. For, as has been said. not everyone concerns himself with this, nor does it come from human understanding or choice. It takes more than reason and free will to be able to grasp and accept it, as Christ says in John 6 [:44]: "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him" And again [John 6:45]: "Whoever hears it and learns it from My Father comes to Me." These words, even though they sound harsh toward false Christians, are, nevertheless, sweet and comforting to upright hearts that hold His Word dear, if one looks into Christ's heart and mind from which they flow. For He wants to indicate, as has been said, that it is not man's will and intention that make one cling to Christ and become His disciple, but it is God's work and power.

This is readily proved by looking out into the wide world and seeing how few there are who value Christ's Word and hold it dear, particularly where might, wisdom, holiness, etc., rule. There is nothing more despised or accursed on the face of the earth than the dear Gospel. The world in its wisdom is able to censure it so masterfully, to mock and scorn it so disdainfully, to libel and slander it so venomously and sharply, to persecute it so fiercely and bitterly, that, in sum, no folly, no vice, no aberration, no devil is so hated as Christ is. Man is able to tolerate, ignore, excuse, and prettify all sorts of sects, blasphemy of God, public shame, and vice. But Christ must take all this upon Himself and bear it; on Him all people pour out their venomous, insatiable hatred and resentment. Therefore, do not take it as a small comfort but as a sure and certain one that if you feel that you love Christ and His Word and with all your heart desire to abide steadfast in it, you are among the little flock that belongs to Christ and shall not be lost.

Now if you are also tempted by such thoughts as, "Yes, even though I hold Christ dear and gladly hear Him, who knows whether I am reconciled with the Father in heaven?"—this, too. He will clear away, saying: "You fool, you would be entirely unable to delight in My Word or revelation if this had not been given you by the Father! Don't you hear that it is His own work and grace? For He has already taken you out of the world and given you to Me; that is. He has put it into your heart to hear Me gladly and hold My Word in love and esteem. There you have everything. What more is there to look for? Only take heed lest you fall away." In sum, whoever is clinging to Christ possesses sheer grace and cannot be lost, even if out of weakness he should fall like St. Peter, so long as he does not despise the Word like the crude spirits who boast of the Gospel yet pay no attention to it. For no one may apply this comfort to himself except poor, distressed, tempted hearts that desire to be reconciled with God, and hold Christ dear, and do not willfully set themselves against His Word but are sorry that it is blasphemed or
persecuted. [LW 69:50-51]

For you must assuredly believe that there is no higher grace and divine work than that someone comes to hear the Word of Christ gladly with all his heart and takes it seriously, regarding it as great and precious. For, as has been said. not everyone concerns himself with this, nor does it come from human understanding or choice. It takes more than reason and free will to be able to grasp and accept it, as Christ says in John 6 [:44]: "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him" And again [John 6:45]: "Whoever hears it and learns it from My Father comes to Me." These words, even though they sound harsh toward false Christians, are, nevertheless, sweet and comforting to upright hearts that hold His Word dear, if one looks into Christ's heart and mind from which they flow. For He wants to indicate, as has been said, that it is not man's will and intention that make one cling to Christ and become His disciple, but it is God's work and power.

This is readily proved by looking out into the wide world and seeing how few there are who value Christ's Word and hold it dear, particularly where might, wisdom, holiness, etc., rule. There is nothing more despised or accursed on the face of the earth than the dear Gospel. The world in its wisdom is able to censure it so masterfully, to mock and scorn it so disdainfully, to libel and slander it so venomously and sharply, to persecute it so fiercely and bitterly, that, in sum, no folly, no vice, no aberration, no devil is so hated as Christ is. Man is able to tolerate, ignore, excuse, and prettify all sorts of sects, blasphemy of God, public shame, and vice. But Christ must take all this upon Himself and bear it; on Him all people pour out their venomous, insatiable hatred and resentment. Therefore, do not take it as a small comfort but as a sure and certain one that if you feel that you love Christ and His Word and with all your heart desire to abide steadfast in it, you are among the little flock that belongs to Christ and shall not be lost.

Now if you are also tempted by such thoughts as, "Yes, even though I hold Christ dear and gladly hear Him, who knows whether I am reconciled with the Father in heaven?"—this, too. He will clear away, saying: "You fool, you would be entirely unable to delight in My Word or revelation if this had not been given you by the Father! Don't you hear that it is His own work and grace? For He has already taken you out of the world and given you to Me; that is. He has put it into your heart to hear Me gladly and hold My Word in love and esteem. There you have everything. What more is there to look for? Only take heed lest you fall away." In sum, whoever is clinging to Christ possesses sheer grace and cannot be lost, even if out of weakness he should fall like St. Peter, so long as he does not despise the Word like the crude spirits who boast of the Gospel yet pay no attention to it. For no one may apply this comfort to himself except poor, distressed, tempted hearts that desire to be reconciled with God, and hold Christ dear, and do not willfully set themselves against His Word but are sorry that it is blasphemed orpersecuted. [LW 69:50-51]

I am praying for them, and I do not pray for the world (John 17:9)
From this let us also take comfort, be joyful and of good cheer, and in firm faith conclude that those for whom Christ is praying will certainly be delivered and preserved against the devil's fury and rage, as well as against sin and every temptation. [LW 69: 61-62]

The ones You have given me (John 17:11)
Thereby we know that God himself has led us to hear Christ, and our salvation does not depend on ourselves but is in God's hand, "from which no one can snatch them [John 10:29]. Therefore he means: "Since You gave them to Me that they might become my disciples and have called them to true holiness, I pray that You will henceforth preserve them in it, that they may not become unsanctified or polluted and be misled in any error" [LW 69:75].

John 6: 38. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me;39. and this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up at the Last Day.

The fatherly will of which Christ speaks here includes and teaches that He, the Lord Christ, will not lose any of those who come to Him and are given to Him, that is, those who believe in Him, but that all of them will be saved and live eternally. Thus Christ says at another place: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the Last Day” (John 6:40). This surely does not mean to be cast out, but to be kept with Him. This is a far different will from what the Law demands of us. It is necessary, therefore, to distinguish between the wills of God. The will of God reflected in the text is this, that no believer in Christ is to be lost. It pictures God as kindly disposed to us and banishes all lightning, thunder, hail, yes, all wrath and disfavor of God. It reveals God’s gracious resolve that all who see the Son and believe in Him shall be preserved, saved, and well supplied. God does not deal with them according to justice and its just verdict and punishment, but He entertains a gracious will toward them. God does not come to punish, but His will in Christ is only the gracious will of the Father, which kindly invites us to come to Him. [LW 23:63].

Summary
It does indeed appear Luther believed in the loss of salvation. Even with those strong comments from LW 69, he includes statements like "Only take heed lest you fall away" and "so long as he does not despise the Word." On the other hand, my understanding is that Luther did indeed attribute double predestination to the "hidden God,"so in some sense for Luther, there are a specific determined number of people God chooses to save, that will be saved, and it can not be otherwise, and it has nothing to do with their "free" choices. Note this explanation by Paul Althaus:

“For Luther the assertion that God is God implicitly includes the fact that God alone works all in all together with the accompanying foreknowledge…. This determines not only man's outward but also his inner fate, his relationship to God in faith or unfaith, in obedience or disobedience. Here too man is completely in God's hands. Luther finds the biblical basis for this particularly in I Corinthians 12:6, "God works all in all." Luther expands the sense of this passage far beyond Paul's meaning in its original setting. It appears very frequently in Luther's thought.

The Bible in addition bears witness, and experience confirms the fact, that men actually relate themselves differently to the word of God. Some are open to faith; others remain closed to it. Accordingly, the Bible expects human history to end in a twofold way. Not all will be blessed; and many will be lost. Luther can, in the context of his assertion that God works all in all, find the ultimate cause in God himself, in his intention, and in his working. This decision is not made by man's supposedly free will, but only by God's willing and working. He chooses some to be saved and he rejects the others without an apparent reason for either choice. He gives faith to one through the working of His Spirit; and he refuses to give faith to others so that they are bound in their unbelief. Salvation and destruction thus result from God's previous decision and his corresponding twofold activity. God's choice is not based on the individual's condition; it establishes this condition. This means an unconditional, eternal predestination both to salvation and to damnation.

Luther does not reach this conclusion on the basis of philosophical speculation about God, but finds it in the Scripture. He experienced it in God's relationship to him personally; and the God whom he thus personally experienced is the very same God who speaks and is proclaimed in the Scripture. Paul especially testified to Luther that God makes this twofold decision and that he hardens those who are lost: "God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18). Paul illustrates this with the picture of the potter making vessels of honor as well as dishonor out of the same clay (Rom. 9: 20 ff.). In addition, Paul quotes Malachi, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:13). And Paul specifically refers to God's treatment of Pharaoh (Rom. 9:17)

The position Scripture thus presented to Luther was also the inescapable result of his understanding of God. He even cites man's innate rational concept of God as an additional proof. It seems blasphemous even to think that God does not work man's decision to believe or not to believe, as though God could be surprised by man's choice and men might be saved or lost without God knowing it. Whoever so thinks denies that God is God and makes fun of Him as though he were a ridiculous idol." Whoever speaks seriously of God must necessarily teach his foreknowledge and his unconditional determination of all things.

Luther thus finds a twofold will of God in the Scripture. Together with statements about God's all-inclusive grace are other statements which express another willing and working of God which stands with his willing and working of salvation. Together with grace stands wrath, a wrath which rejects and which is no longer a part of love; and this is found not only in the Old but also in the New Testament. Luther did not draw a two-sided picture of God from his own imagination, but he saw it already present in Scripture. The God of the Bible is not unequivocally the God of the gospel. The God of the Bible is not only the God of all grace but is also the God who, if he wills, hardens and rejects. This God even treats a man equivocally: he offers his grace in the word and yet refuses to give his Spirit to bring about his conversion. He can even harden a man—in all this Luther does not go in substance beyond the difficult passages of Scripture which describe God as hardening a man's heart.

Luther, however, summarized the substance of such scriptural statements in the sharpest possible expressions. In The Bondage of the Will he teaches that God has a double will, even a double reality. The God revealed and preached in the gospel must be distinguished from the hidden God who is not preached, the God who works all things. God's word is not the same as "God himself." God, through his word, approaches man with the mercy which (according to Ezekiel 33) does not seek the death of the sinner but that he turn and live. But the hidden will of God, the will we must fear, "determines for itself which and what sort of men it chooses to enable to participate in this mercy offered through the proclamation." God "does not will the death of the sinner, that is, according to his word; he does, however, will it according to his inscrutable will." God revealed in his word mourns the sinner's death and seeks to save him from it. "God hidden in his majesty, on the other hand, does not mourn the sinner's death, or abrogate it, but works life and death in everything in all. For God has not limited himself to his word but retains his freedom over everything. . . . God does many things that he does not show us through his word. He also wills many things his word does not show us." [Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966) pp. 274-276].

Addendum (2018)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2009. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.