Luther? "When I look at myself, I don't see how I can be saved. When I look at Christ, I don't see how I can be lost."

Here's an obscure Martin Luther quote making the cyber-rounds:"When I look at myself, I don't see how I can be saved. When I look at Christ, I don't see how I can be lost." Dr. Joel Beeke says he has this quote taped to his computer! I also saw that another popular apologist referenced it on his X feed. Did Luther actually write this?  In this form, I'm not sure... but I don't think so.

Cursory searches reveal this popular quote is either attributed to Luther or left unattributed. Interestingly, the oldest usages of the quote I found are from Seventh-day Adventist publications. Here's an obscured partial hit going back to an Adventist magazine from 1979. Because the quote isn't visible in the search result, I can't know for sure if the quote is attributed to Martin Luther. I contacted this SDA magazine to find out if I there was a way to gain access to the entire article... but received no response. Fast forward to 2001 and here's an example of a page from a Seventh-day Adventist devotional. Here's a few more SDA examples.

Luther's Commentary on Galatians?
A few years ago, someone else sought to track this quote down and was given a response saying the quote is from Luther's Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians: 

In the Apostolic Creed we confess: "I believe in the holy Christian* Church." That means, I believe that there is no sin, no curse, no evil in the Church of God. Faith says: "I believe that." But if you want to believe your eyes you will find many shortcomings and offenses in the members of the holy Church. You see them succumb to temptation, you see them weak in faith, you see them giving way to anger, envy, and other evil dispositions. "How can the Church be holy?" you ask. It is with the Christian Church as it is with the individual Christian. If I examine myself I find enough unholiness to shock me. But when I look at Christ in me I find that I am altogether holy. And so it is with the Church (source).

Frankly, I do not think this is where this quote comes from. True there is a comparison being made between self and Jesus Christ. However, the comparison is about holiness, not salvation and the main subject is the church. While these are all symbiotically related, the nuance Luther is making is in regard as to how it's possible to refer to the "holy Christian church." I do think there is a sense in which the quotes can be harmonized by the perfect righteousness of Christ, but yet the quotes seem too different to me:  

"When I look at myself, I don't see how I can be saved. When I look at Christ, I don't see how I can be lost."

"If I examine myself I find enough unholiness to shock me. But when I look at Christ in me I find that I am altogether holy."

One curiosity of this proposed source is that it comes from an abridged English translation in which the translator wanted "to make Luther talk American." The superior unabridged English translation in LW 26 reads differently and demonstrates the point Luther was making about the Church: 

If I look at my own person or at that of my neighbor, the church will never be holy. But if I look at Christ, who is the Propitiator and Cleanser of the church, then it is completely holy; for He bore the sins of the entire world (LW 26:285).

Conclusion
Frankly, "When I look at myself, I don't see how I can be saved. When I look at Christ, I don't see how I can be lost" is ambiguous enough to work in almost any form of Christian theism. Because of ambiguity, I think it's possible the quote could be used by a Roman Catholic as well as a Jehovah's Witness. If someone wants to use this quote and attribute it to Luther, be faithful to Luther's theology. Use the quote so that it is harmonious with his thought that a Christian is simultaneously a saint and sinner (Simul Iustus et Peccator):

Thus if I look at Christ, I am completely holy and pure, and I know nothing at all about the Law; for Christ is my leaven. But if I look at my flesh, I feel greed, sexual desire, anger, pride, the terror of death, sadness, fear, hate, grumbling, and impatience against God. (LW 26:350).

Certainly insofar as I am a Christian, that is, for to the extent I am righteous, godly, and belong to Christ. But insofar as I look at myself and my sin, I am wretched and the greatest sinner. so in Christ, there is no sin while in our flesh, there is no peace and quiet, but a constant battle as long as this old Adam and this corrupt nature remain and they will not be destroyed except by the same death (LW 73:176).

These are only two examples, I'm sure many others could be dug up. The quote certainly sounds like something Luther may have said or written, but I can't shake the suspicion that the 1979 Seventh-day Adventist magazine is the key to solving the mystery. If you have any verifiable Luther quotes that sound like the quote, please post them in the comments section!   

Addendum: 2001 Seventh-day Adventist devotional

Luther: The Soul is Not Immortal?

Did Luther deny the immortality of the soul? Here's the "go to" Luther quote proving he did:

"But I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as [1]The Bread and wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament. [2] The essence of God neither generates, nor is generated. [3] The soul is the substantial form of the human body. [4] The Pope is the emperor of the world, and the king of heaven, and God upon earth. [5] The soul is immortal, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals, that such as his faith is, such may be his gospel, such his disciples, and such his church, that the mouth may have meat suitable for it, and the dish, a cover worthy of it."

This sort of historical polemic is typical of Seventh-Day Adventists (SDA). According to this group, at death, a person enters "soul sleep."  The soul sleeps in a state of hibernation until the resurrection.  When awakened, it is reunited with its body. The soul is either sent off to eternity or permanently annihilated. Therefore, the immortality of the soul is denied. Seventh-Day Adventists apologetics often claim Luther as a representative of this entire eschatological paradigm.

In the quote, Luther says "the Pope" declared it an article of faith that "the soul was immortal."  This article of faith, according to Luther, is found "in the Roman dunghill of decretals." A plain reading of this quote does blatantly appear to prove Luther denied the immortality of the soul.  Contrarily, this entry will argue against this plain reading: Luther did not deny the immortality of the soul. There's an ambiguity in the quote that only make sense in the light of Luther's harsh criticism of the "articles of faith" of Fifth Lateran Council, a council that took place only a short time before he made this statement.

Documentation
This Luther quote is a popular cut-and-paste.  The form used above includes bracketed numbers, very similar to the version found in the pro-Seventh Day Adventist book The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers Vol. 2 (1955), by Le Roy Edwin Froom.  On Page 73 Froom articulates the typical SDA interpretation of the quote:

The implication is clear: These were distinctive Catholic doctrines, expressing the Roman faith, and consequently consistent with Catholic dogmas. But they were at variance with the Protestant scripturalism proclaimed by Luther, for the Biblical concept of the nature and the destiny of man had been woefully warped by the Papacy.

Froom probably did not sift out this Luther statement himself. A cursory search demonstrates a lengthy history of use of this anglicized quote. The form can be found as far back as 1772. Interestingly, in both Froom and the 1772 text, both authors capitalize Luther saying, "THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL." What are the odds of that? Whoever translated this quote into English from the Latin did so at least over two hundred years ago and it's been cut-and-pasted in roughly this same form ever since, first in books, now in cyber-space.

Froom and many SDA writings correctly say the quote is from Luther's response to the papal bull Exsurge Domine, in particular, Luther's Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull, November 29, 1520. What they often don't tell you is Luther actually penned four responses in rapid fire to Exsurge Domine. The one being cited is the third: Assertio omnium articulorum M. Lutheri per bummam Leonis X.  To my knowledge, no complete English translation exists. The text can be found in WA 7: 131-132.

Context

Probo hunc sic: i. Corint, iii. Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est, quod est Iesus Christus”. Hic habes fundamentum ab Apostolis positum. At omnis articulus fidei est pars huius fundamenti, quare poni alius articulus quam positus est nullus potest, Superaedificari autem potest, ut idem dicit. Et ideo Papa debet nobiscum poni et super aedificari, non autem ponere: omnia enim credenda sunt in scripturis exposita plene.

 Permitto tamen, quod Papa condat articulos suae fidei et suis fidelibus, quales sunt, panem et vinum transsubstantiari in sacramento, Essentiam dei nec generare nec generari, Animam esse formam substantialem corporis humani, Se esse Imperatorem mundi et regem coeli et deum terrenum, Animam esse immortalem, Et omnia illa infinita portenta in Romano sterquilinio Decretorum, ut, qualis est eius fides, tale sit Euangelium, tales et fideles, talis et Ecclesia, et habeant similem labra lactucam et dignum patella sit operculum.

Nos vero, qui non Papani sed Christiani sumus, scimus, quod nihil est fidei et bonorum morum, quod non abunde in literis sacris sit expositum, ut neque ius neque locus sit alia statuendi ullis hominibus.

Conclusion
It's obvious how someone would arrive at the conclusion from this text that Luther denied the immortality of the soul. Luther does blatantly say it is found "in the Roman dunghill of decretals." This obvious interpretation though is faulty. The quote has to be understood in light of Luther's criticism of the Fifth Lateran Council, particularly it's decree that the soul is immortal formulated at the eighth session of December 1513 under the jurisdiction of Pope Leo X. 

The Latin text above comes from Luther's third response to Exsurge Domine from late 1520. He went on only a few months later to write a fourth, Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind (March, 1521), in English known as Defense and explanation of All the Articles.  According to LW 32, Luther considered the fourth "'smoother and simpler' than the preceding efforts" (LW 32:5; cf. Smith, 442-443). In the fourth version, Luther addresses the issue:

Hence the experts in Rome have recently pronounced a holy decree which establishes that the soul of man is immortal, acting as if we did not all say in our common Creed, “I believe in the life everlasting.” And, with the assistance of the mastermind Aristotle, they decreed further that the soul is “essentially the form of the human body,” and many other splendid articles of a similar nature. These decrees are, indeed, most appropriate to the papal church, for they make it possible for them to hold fast to human dreams and the doctrines of devils while they trample upon and destroy faith and the teaching of Christ (LW 32: 77–78). 

The "experts in Rome" refers to the recent pronouncement by the Fifth Lateran Council.  Luther's Works contains an interesting footnote at this point which states, "Luther objects to the substitution of philosophical ideas concerning the immortality of the soul for the biblical teaching of the resurrection and the life everlasting." According to LW, Luther is condemning philosophical speculation in the guise of infallible church pronouncements. He’s not denying the immortality of the soul. He makes this clear in the use of comparison to the "common creed." and the biblical doctrine of "life everlasting." Lest this interpretation seem post hoc, consider Luther's similar statements on the Fifth Lateran Council and the immortality of the soul found elsewhere in his written corpus:

Whoever has been in Rome knows that conditions are unfortunately worse there than anyone can say or believe. When the last Lateran council was to be concluded in Rome under Pope Leo, among other articles it was decreed that one must believe the soul to be immortal. From this one may gather that they make eternal life an object of sheer mockery and contempt. In this way they confess that it is a common belief among them that there is no eternal life, but that they now wish to proclaim this by means of a bull (LW 47:37-38).

The Roman See should do away with the officia, and cut down the creeping, crawling swarm of vermin at Rome, so that the pope’s household can be supported out of the pope’s own pocket. The pope should not allow his court to surpass the courts of all kings in pomp and extravagance, because this kind of thing not only has never been of any use to the cause of the Christian faith, but has kept the courtesans from study and prayer until they are hardly able to speak about the faith at all. This they proved quite flagrantly at this last Roman council, in which, among many other childish and frivolous things, they decreed that the soul of man is immortal and that every priest must say his prayers once a month unless he wants to lose his benefice. How can the affairs of Christendom and matters of faith be settled by men who are hardened and blinded by gross avarice, wealth, and worldly splendor, and who now for the first time decree that the soul is immortal? It is no small shame to the whole of Christendom that they deal so disgracefully with the faith at Rome. If they had less wealth and pomp, they could pray and study more diligently to be worthy and diligent in dealing with matters of faith, as was the case in ancient times when bishops did not presume to be the kings of kings (LW 44:163).

Notice in the first quote, Luther charges the papists,  "they confess that it is a common belief among them that there is no eternal life," and then in the second, he says, "now for the first time decree that the soul is immortal."  Why would Luther make such statements about the Fifth Lateran Council?  He explains in various places that the papists of his day did not believe in the resurrection:

And the Turks perform the same holy works as some of our monks and hope for everlasting life at the Judgment Day, for, holy people that they are, they believe in the resurrection of the dead, though few of the papists believe in it (LW 46:177).

But so as to not erase everything [decreed in the Fifth Lateran Council], [Pope Leo X] left in that sweetest decree, namely that one must henceforth believe, or at least teach, that the soul is immortal. With this decree it was not their intention to provide for themselves, but for the wretched Church of God. For neither Leo himself nor his Curia believed this; and still today they do not believe it. Rather, they consider those who believe and confess it to be fools (LW 60:306). [footnote #19, "...[I]t has been argued that he rejected the doctrine of the soul's immortality to which he opposed belief in the resurrection of the body. Luther however, did not see the two teachings in opposition, and his argument here suggests that materially he accepts the council's position on this point while being doubtful of the faith of the Roman prelates."]

Just as the Sadducees believed, so do the Papists believe that there is no resurrection of the dead (LW 58:247). [Footnote: Luther argued that the need to dogmatize the doctrine of the immortality of the soul in the bull Apostolici regiminis of the Fifth Lateran Council was an indication that the Roman theologians did not believe in eternal life].

Luther did actually affirm the immortality of the soul in his writings. In "the philosophers, like Socrates and others," Luther says they rightly believed the soul was immortal, even though the proofs they used were done "so coldly that they seem to be setting forth mere fables"  (LW 15:59). Luther maintained attempting to prove its immortality simply by "human reason" was folly because "it is not a thing 'under the sun' to believe that the soul is immortal. In the world it is neither seen nor understood as certain that souls are immortal" (LW 15:59).

In regard to the biblical testimony, Luther says the Genesis account has it in the resting of God on the seventh day: "this also implies the immortality of the human race" (LW 1:80). When commenting on Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 that at death all go back to dust, Luther says,

This passage cannot be twisted to refer to the mortality of the soul, for he is speaking about things under the sun. The world, of course, cannot understand or believe that the soul is immortal. (LW 15:59).

SDA apologists do not deny that some souls go on into eternity. Their contention is that some souls do not, and are annihilated at the final judgment. In fairness to them, Luther does use the phrase "eternal death" liberally and often ambiguously.  For instance, "Those who do not believe, then, who do not receive Him, will be punished with eternal death" (LW 12:57). Does he mean annihilation or eternal conscious punishment? 

A survey of his writings suggests the later. In LW 76:412, Luther said that "the godless goes from life and feels death eternally." In commenting on 1 Thes. 4:13-18, he says that those without hope "must expect that after this life they will receive eternal death and the wrath of God in hell and must fear to go there" (LW 53:325-326). In expounding on the death of Jesus, he had to "taste" eternal death in the place of sinners, "He must suffer everything that a condemned sinner has deserved and must suffer eternally" (LW 12:127). By implication, Luther was not presenting a Christology in which Christ ceases to exist!  One of the most explicit passages from Luther on conscious eternal torment occurs in his treatment of Psalm 21:9 (cf. WA 5:590-591):

Ver. 9. — Thou shalt put them into an oven of fire in the time of thy countenance : the Lord shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

The prophet here beautifully sets the circumstances themselves before our eyes : for this is exactly how it is with the wicked when the hand of God finds them out on a sudden, and visits them: for then they are taken, and find themselves in the midst of their straits, so that they would, if they could, flee from the sight of his wrath, or from this revelation of a just and angry God; but they cannot flee from it; and therefore, they call like them in Hosea x. 8, 'Ye mountains, fall oh us, and ye hills, cover us." But all is in vain; for they are compelled to endure that day and that revelation of eternal wrath; and then there begins fear, trembling, flight, and intolerable horror, which makes them to burn in that unspeakable eternal fire. All external fire is nothing when compared with this eternal fire: and therefore, David very appropriately describes them as being made like unto an oven of fire ; or, as we say in Latin, a fiery oven; which has not only fire all around it, but scorches and burns within. And thus Abraham, Gen. xix. saw Sodom and Gomorrah burning, and the smoke of them going up as from a furnace.

And this mighty and intolerable punishment God brings on men by his "countenance" only: that is, by the revelation of his wrath; as David here says, " Thou shalt make them like unto a fiery oven in the time of thy countenance." And 2 Thess. i. 9, "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." And Psalm xxxiv. 16, " But the face of the Lord is against them that do evil." In a word, this is that punishment which none can understand, nor have any idea of, but the damned who feel it: so that it is even awful to meditate upon the words of this verse, so appropriately and descriptively does David set the whole forth. — This oven is set on fire by the intolerable sight of God only, and is to burn to all eternity. For the day of Judgment will not endure for a moment only, but will remain for ever: it will never set: the wicked will be judged for ever and ever, and will be tormented for ever and ever, and the oven will burn for ever and ever: that is, the wicked will be tormented inwardly with the extreme of all straits and tribulation.

Did Luther deny the immortality of the soul? Not at all. True, Luther did at times advocate "soul sleep." He did so in somewhat undogmatic terms, at times cautioning his readers that we don’t have full understanding of this subject. Some times he advocates it clearly,  other times he says things that contradict it (see my entry here). This is only a cursory glimpse into his writings. Much more could be added, but what is presented is enough to demonstrate that some Seventh-Day Adventist apologetics are not presenting a clear picture of the historical record.

Luther on Soul Sleep: "Salomon judgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all"

Here's an obscure Luther quote being used in the webpage, Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded:

Shocking but true, and in fact, Luther has his admirers in none other than the Seventh Day Adventists, for this heresy of annihilationism also known as soul sleep. Luther clearly taught this:

“Salomon judgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all. For the dead lye there accompting neyther dayes nor yeares, but when are awaked, they shall seeme to have slept scarce one minute.”

An Exposition of Salomon’s Booke, called Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, 1553, folio 151v. (A direct English translation of Luther’s German done in 1553)

What Seventh Day Adventists Believe

According to this webpage, Luther "clearly taught" the Seventh-Day Adventist view of "annihilationism also known as soul sleep."  It's my understanding that Seventh-Day Adventism holds that after death, once the soul awakes, it is either sent off to eternity or annihilated- thus they deny the immortality of the soul (that the soul is necessarily immortal). For Adventism, soul sleep is not equivalent to annihilationism. This website points out that these terms would be more equivalent in the way Jehovah's Witnesses use them:

Soul sleep is the teaching that when a person dies that his soul "sleeps" until the time of the future resurrection. In this condition, the person is not aware or conscious. The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh-day Adventists hold to this doctrine. But the Jehovah's Witnesses teach annihilation. This means that after death, a person ceases to exist. At the future resurrection they maintain that the soul is made again. Basically, it is a re-creation of the individual. The Seventh-day Adventists teach that the soul is simply inert and resides in the memory of God.

The official site the Seventh-Day Adventists affirm soul sleep for all, and annihilation for some:

At death, all consciousness ends. The dead person does not know anything and does not do anything (Eccl. 9:5, 6, 10). Jesus and the apostles (as well as writers in the Old Testament) frequently referred to death as sleep (e.g.,Matt. 9:24; Mark 5:39; John 11:11-14; 1 Cor. 15:51, 52; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; 2 Peter 3:4; Dan. 12:2; Job 14:10-12; Ps. 13:3). The image of sleep emphasizes that death is not the end, but is rather an unconscious state prior to the resurrection (note in this regard the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11:11-14,23-25, 43).

And also:

The punishment of the unrepentant is called the second death: After the final judgment the unrepentant receive their punishment. This punishment is called the second death. “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14, 15; see also 21:8). The Bible also uses words such as “perishing” and “destruction” in speaking of the ultimate fate of the unrepentant (e.g., 
2 Peter 3:7, 9; John 3:16; Heb. 10:28; Mal. 4:1). These descriptions confirm that the second death refers to annihilation (or extinction) of the unrepentant, rather than a continual and eternal conscious torment.

Luther did not believe in annihilationism for the damned- see his comments on Psalm 21:9 (WA 5:590) "Constantly the damned will be judged, constantly they will suffer pain, and constantly they will be a fiery oven, that is, they will be tortured within by supreme distress and tribulation"; and his sermon on Matthew 22:1-4, "...their hands and feet shall be tied, and they shall be cast into outermost darkness, that is, they must eternally lie captive with the devil in hell-fire" (WA 52:513).

Whatever Luther's view was on soul sleep (see discussion below), there is a fundamental mistake with how the argumentation is presented: the comparison is being made between Luther and an incorrect presentation of Seventh-Day Adventism. 

Documentation

The documentation provided refers to "An Exposition of Salomon’s Booke, called Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, 1553, folio 151v. (A direct English translation of Luther’s German done in 1553)." The reference is probably wrong at least in two respects. First, the English translation was probably from 1573, not 1553. I could find no verification of any such English translation being done in 1553, and even the source I believe first pulled this quote said 1573, not 1553. Second, Luther didn't write this in German. Luther's material on Ecclesiastes is the result of lectures notes taken in Latin by Georg Rörer who listened to Luther's lectures on Ecclesiastes.

Given that so many of Luther's writings have been translated into contemporary English (including his exposition on Ecclesiastes), I found this reference curious. I believe that this quote probably was taken from a 1957 Seventh-Day Adventist publication: Seventh-Day Adventists Questions on Doctrine. The reason why they relied on such an old English translation is because that's probably all there was at the time in regard to Luther's Exposition of Ecclesiastes in English. The current English version contained in Luther's Works came out in 1971,  so, some Adventist managed to track down the 1573 old English edition!

In Questions on Doctrine (page 517) the Adventists state:

Here are sample Luther citations. In the quaint 1573 English translation we read:

Salomon iudgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all. For the dead lye there accompting neyther dayes nor yeares, but when they are awaked, they shall seeme to haue slept scarce one minute.—An Exposition of Salomon's Booke, Called Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, 1573, folio 151v.

There's the quote in its exact form. The Latin this was taken from can be found in WA 20:162.

This text was translated into English in LW 15:150. It's Luther's comments on Ecclesiastes 9:10. Luther's lectures on Ecclesiastes date from 1526.


Context

10. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in the pit, to which you are going.

This is the second part of the exhortation. In it he opposes those idle men who, because they see that the world is ungrateful and because they are aware of its pain, refuse to achieve anything at all or to do any good. Therefore he commands both, that we should be merry, but in such a way that we do not become idle but labor in accordance with the command in Gen. 3:17–19. The labor must be present, but the burdensome and troublesome anxieties must not. One must tire his body with labor, but one’s heart must be free of anxiety and be content with what is in the present. Add a third element: Do not afflict your heart with grief because you see that the world is ungrateful. Now, he says finds deliberately; that is, “do not pursue your own plans but what lies at hand, what God has commanded and provided, without any concern about the future.” When he says with your might, he is demanding industry and diligence. For there is no work, etc., in the pit. This is another passage which proves that the dead do not feel anything. There is, he says, no thought or art or knowledge or wisdom there. Therefore Solomon thought that the dead are completely asleep and do not feel anything at all. The dead lie there without counting days or years; but when they are raised, it will seem to them that they have only slept for a moment. Pit means the grave or the sepulcher. In my opinion it refers to the hidden resting-place in which the dead sleep outside of the present life, where the soul departs to its place. Whatever it may be, it cannot be physical. Thus you should understand the pit to mean the place where the souls are kept, a sort of sepulcher of the soul outside this physical world, just as the earth is the sepulcher of the body. What this is, however, is unknown to us. So in Gen. 42:38 and 44:29: “I shall descend with sorrow to the pit” and “You will bring down my gray hairs in sorrow to the pit.” For true saints do not descend to the pit in order to suffer something there. Therefore the dead are outside of space, because whatever is outside of this life is outside of space. In the same way we shall be removed from space and time after the resurrection. Thus also Christ is outside of space. This we say in opposition to those who want to take Christ captive in space, although He is everywhere. The Word of God is not separated from the flesh. Where God is, there the flesh of Christ is. But God is everywhere; therefore Christ is everywhere also. [Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 15: Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Last Words of David, 2 Samuel 23:1-7. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 15, pp. 150–151). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Conclusion
Did Luther believe in soul sleep? The answer is a hesitating yes, speculatively at times. He did so in somewhat undogmatic terms, at times cautioning his readers that we don’t have full understanding of this subject. At times he says things that contradict "soul sleep."’His was not a dogmatic conclusion. Luther knew that describing the state of the dead was speculative theology. The state of the dead was prone to wild speculation during his time. This can be seen early in his career in a letter to Nicholas von Amsdorf (January 13, 1522). Luther responded to the question of what happens to the soul after death. Note how Luther responds cautiously:

“Concerning your “souls,” I have not enough [insight into the problem] to answer you.  I am inclined to agree with your opinion that the souls of the just are asleep and that they do not know where they are up to the Day of Judgment. I am drawn to this opinion by the word of Scripture, “They sleep with their fathers.”  The dead who were raised by Christ and by the apostles testify to this fact,  since they were as if they had just awakened from sleep and didn’t know where they had been. To this must be added the ecstatic experiences of many saints. I have nothing with which I could overthrow this opinion. But I do not dare to affirm that this is true for all souls in general, because of the ecstasy of Paul,  and the ascension of Elijah and of Moses (who certainly did not appear as phantoms on Mount Tabor). 

Who knows how God deals with the departed souls? Can’t [God] just as well make them sleep on and off (or for as long as he wishes [them to sleep]), just as he overcomes with sleep those who live in the flesh? And again, that passage in Luke 16 [:23 ff.] concerning Abraham and Lazarus, although it does not force the assumption of a universal [capacity of feeling on the part of the departed],yet it attributes a capacity of feeling to Abraham and Lazarus, and it is hard to twist this passage to refer to the Day of Judgment.

I think the same about the condemned souls; some may feel punishments immediately after death, but others may be spared from [punishments] until that Day [of Judgment]. For the reveler [in that parable] confesses that he is tortured;  and the Psalm says, “Evil will catch up with the unjust man when he perishes.” You perhaps also refer this either to the Day of Judgment or to the passing anguish of physical death. Then my opinion would be that this is uncertain. It is most probable, however, that with few exceptions, all [departed souls] sleep without possessing any capacity of feeling. Consider now who the “spirits in prison” were to whom Christ preached, as Peter writes:  Could they not also sleep until the Day [of Judgment]?  Yet when Jude says concerning the Sodomites that they suffer the pain of eternal fire, he is speaking of a present [fire]."[LW 48:360-361]."

The same sort of caution was peppered throughout his writings. Some years back I put forth a number of quotes from Luther demonstrating that his position on this subject was undogmatic and speculative. See Luther's Understanding of soul Sleep (Part three). A fascinating study on Luther's view of the state of the dead can be found in Concordia Theological Monthly (July - August 1967) in the article, "Martin Luther's View on the State of the Dead" by Philip J. Secker. The article surveys numerous writings from Luther demonstrating how varied Luther was on this topic. The author presents such a numerous amount of citations so that "the reader can evaluate for himself the conclusion of this study that Luther was not wholly consistent in his teachings about the state of the dead." Or, note the conclusion of another study on the same topic cited by Secker:

Although Luther sometimes expressed opinions in favor of the unconscious state of the dead and placed their punishment or reward after the last judgment, the main bulk of his teaching indicates that he believed in the conscious state of the dead and its attendant immediate punishment or reward. As a rule, he considered the righteous dead as being in a place of reward and the ungodly dead as being in a place of punishment although he plainly taught that it can be neither real hell or [sic] purgatory" (Toivo Nikolai Ketola, A Study of Martin Luther's Teaching Concerning the State of the Dead [A master of arts thesis presented to the faculty of the SeventhDay Adventist Theological Seminary, Takoma Park, Washington, D. c., January 1956].

Interestingly as well, The Journal of the Adventist Theological Society put forth an article in 2011 entitled, "A Re-examination of Luther’s View on theState of the Dead." That article seeks to argue that Luther was inconsistent, but the scale tips in favor of his main view being soul sleep. I would follow that view put forth by Secker. I think the Adventist view put forth by The Journal of the Adventist Theological Society is simply a broader attempt at was was done sparsely in 1957: to find historical support for one of their main doctrines. The fact of the matter is that Luther wasn't overly concerned about the state of the dead like they are because it wasn't one of his main doctrines. That's why his views were inconsistent and so varied as Secker demonstrates. I still stand by my 2006 conclusion when I first encountered the Adventists using Luther on this subject:

What can be concluded of Luther’s view? I would assert the following: Luther’s position on this subject is undogmatic. He considers the subject speculative theology. Hence, his opinion doesn’t always add up. What can be said of Seventh Day Adventist usage of Luther on this point? I suggest they incorrectly present a dogmatic Luther who uses “soul sleep” to refute purgatory and saint worship, which I maintain is not the case. To use Luther correctly, they should at least note Luther’s opinion was speculative and undogmatic. He didn’t approach the text of Scripture with the same certainty on “soul sleep” they do. Luther doesn’t even have the same theological motivations for the doctrine of “soul sleep” that the Adventists do. What motivates the Adventists on this doctrine? What motivated Luther? These seem to be crucial questions for anyone wishing to use Luther as an authority.

Luther and the Seventh-day Adventists

This morning I came across two old articles from a Seventh-day Adventists publication: Is There a Relationship Between Luther and Seventh-day Adventists? (1955). I expected a poorly documented bit of propaganda. The first article was more along the lines of propaganda, but I was rather surprised to find that the second article was more balanced. The important factors covered  in the second article were items particular to Seventh-day Adventistism: the Sabbath, eschatology,  the state of the dead, and the Antichrist. On the Sabbath, the article concludes Luther was right that the Sabbath is to be kept holy, but wrong on the day of the week it is to be observed.  On eschatology, the article rightly argues Luther was convinced he lived in the end times, and that the Antichrist could be found in the papacy and in Islam.

In the past I've come across Seventh-day Adventists arguing Luther blatantly and consistently advocated a doctrine of soul sleep. I expected this article to present a similar position. On the contrary, the author states:

As on many other teachings, Martin Luther expressed contradictory opinions on the state of the dead. We can find in his sermons the main opinions as they were current in his time. In his works he refers 125 times to death as being a sleep; but in 32 other passages he states on the contrary that death is a conscious state; 7 times he says that the dead live but are unconscious; and elsewhere he writes that the dead are sometimes conscious and sometimes unconscious. [See all references in Toivo Nikolai Ketola, A Study of Martin Luther's Teaching Concerning the State of the Dead (M.A. thesis, S.D.A. Theological Seminary, 1946), pp. 27-3].

The author cites a then unpublished study that I've certainly never heard of, and I would be curious to know which writings (and in which language) were surveyed. Whether or not the statistics are correct, there were indeed times in which Luther advocated the idea that after death the soul ‘sleeps’ until the final resurrection. The soul hibernates until the resurrection- when it is then awakened and reunited with its body. Luther stated this at times in somewhat undogmatic terms, cautioning his readers that we don’t have full understanding of this subject. At times he says things that contradict ‘soul sleep’- his was not a dogmatic conclusion. Luther knew that describing the state of the dead was speculative theology. The state of the dead was prone to wild speculation during his time. He would not join in to such folly. For more information, see my earlier blog entry here.

Compare and contrast articles as these put together by the Adventists can be tricky things. Certainly any group claiming the Bible as an authority can find areas of agreement and disagreement with other groups claiming the Bible as an authority. This doesn't mean though that Luther and the Adventists are on the same page, and would enjoy fellowship with each other. Consider the fact that at the Marburg colloquy in 1529, Luther and Zwingli agreed on 14 out 15 articles of doctrine, yet the one article they disagreed on was for Luther, a deal breaker. Luther would most-likely have problems with many aspects vital of Adventist doctrine, most particularly the role of Mrs. White and the place of the law.  

SDA's Using Karlstadt and Luther to Prove the Saturday Sabbath

A few years back I came across advocates of Seventh Day Adventism using Luther to prove soul sleep (part 2; part 3). I Recently came across an odd one from the CARM Seventh Day Adventism discussion board. It's a brief comment about Luther and Karlstadt on the Saturday sabbath. Luther did not advocate the Saturday Sabbath but his associate, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, did. The relationship between these two men is certainly complex. It begins with Karlstadt opposing Luther, accepting Luther, and then opposing Luther again. These two men spent many years forcefully writing against each other.

Here's how Karlstadt and Luther are portrayed by a CARM Sabbatarian:

The Sabbath was brought up at the Council of Trent. The Catholic Church used it against the Reformers and Sola Scriptura. Luther knew about it, and rejected it. He instead, accepted the tradition of the church. And his followers also.) Here are a few quotes.

“Consequently, the claim of Scripture alone as the standard fails and the doctrine of ‘Scripture and tradition’ as essential is “fully established”, the Protestants themselves being Judges”! (The Proceedings of the Council of Trent, 17th session, 1562)

(In other words, the Arch Bishop of Reggio turned the council against Luther and the Reformers by stating that “by not accepting the Sabbath stated in Scripture, they [Luther and the Reformers] were holding on to the traditions laid down by the Western Church by observing Sunday as a sacred day of rest”! What an admission! The Sabbath was not a new concept to Luther, having learned so much about it from a very close friend who had been very instrumental in his success. Andres Rudolf B. Carlstadt (1480-1541) was a man spoken of many times by Luther, and considered a mentor to him in many respects. He was as much an authoritarian on the Sabbath as anyone during the Reformation, and worked very hard in trying to persuade Luther to understand the necessity of honoring the Scriptures alone proclamation by its [The Sabbath] observance!)

D’Aubigne states that “Luther admitted that Carlstadt was his superior in learning” (Fifields History, book10 p. 315)

“The observance of the Seventh Day was being revived in Luther’s time by Carlstadt”. Treatsie of the Sabbath, page 8)

“Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath- that is to say, Saturday- must be kept Holy” (Martin Luther Against the Celestial Prophets).

I do not iconize any man. IMO, Luther failed at Trent concerning Sola Scriptura. He simply gave in to the church and its tradition.

This turned out to be... a cut-and-paste, slightly re-worded. I found the same sort of content on this page: Why the Protestant Reformation Failed! Also, some of the material is on this Ellen G. White page. Some of the material makes it back to books from the 1800's. While the issue of proving the Saturday sabbath was the intent of the CARM participant, my specific interest here is in the historical image of Luther and Karlstadt.

Karlstadt Luther's Mentor?
The first thing I found interesting was the image of Karlstadt.  Karlstadt is viewed as Luther's "mentor" and "his superior in learning." Here's how I read what the CARM Sabbatarian is saying: Karlstadt held to the Saturday sabbath. He was Luther's mentor, and smarter than Luther (by Luther's own admission). Therefore, Luther should have followed Karlstadt on this issue. He did not because he "gave in to the church and tradition" rather than practicing sola scriptura like Karlstadt did.

Karlstadt was probably a few years older than Luther (LW 40:75). As to being Luther's "mentor," Martin Brecht, in his book, Martin Luther, His Road to Reformation, states Karlstadt "...did not even own a Bible when he earned the doctor of theology degree or for many years afterward... Karlstadt's respect for Luther was based on the latters stupendous knowledge of the Bible" (p. 84). In terms of Bible knowledge, Karlstadt certainly wasn't Luther's mentor. Brecht also describes that Luther won Karlstadt over to his position. Whereas early on Karlstadt, a strong scholastic papist opposed Luther, he eventually conceded Luther's position on the papacy and describes how Luther was instrumental in Karlstadt's abandonment of scholastic theology (pp. 168-170).

The quote from D’Aubigne that “Luther admitted that Carlstadt was his superior in learning” was somewhat of a challenge to locate. I'm not exactly sure what the reference  "Fifields History, book 10 p. 315" is.  That is, I'm not sure what "Fifields History" means. However, the quote in question comes from book 10 page 315 of  History of the Reformation.  D’Aubigne  recounts the eventual turmoil in the relationship between the two (particularly on the Lord's Supper, not the sabbath), and says:

Carlstadt sought refuge at Strasburg, where he published several writings. “He was well acquainted,” says Doctor Scheur, “with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew;” and Luther acknowledged him to be his superior in learning. Endowed with great powers of mind, he sacrificed to his convictions fame, station country, and even his bread."

D'Aubigne doesn't document exactly who "Doctor Scheur" is and to what text he refers. Nor is it clear if D'Aubigne is quoting Scheur stating "Luther acknowledged him to be his superior in learning." Certainly there were very cordial and flattering things said about his colleague Karlstadt. However, the majority of comments made by Luther about Karlstadt are generally negative.  He wrote more about Karlstadt negatively than he did positively. It's hard to imagine Luther admitting Karlstadt his superior in... anything. The comment from D'Aubigne appears to be in reference to Karlstadt's knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

Karlstadt Was Convincing on the Sabbath?
The second point of interest is the quote from Luther, “Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath- that is to say, Saturday- must be kept Holy” (Martin Luther Against the Celestial Prophets). This reference is to  Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments found in LW 40.  The context shows Luther's comment was quite sarcastic against Karlstadt:

Now then, let us get to the bottom of it all and say that these teachers of sin and Mosaic prophets are not to confuse us with Moses. We don’t want to see or hear Moses. How do you like that, my dear rebels? We say further, that all such Mosaic teachers deny the gospel, banish Christ, and annul the whole New Testament. I now speak as a Christian for Christians. For Moses is given to the Jewish people alone, and does not concern us Gentiles and Christians. We have our gospel and New Testament. If they can prove from them that images must be put away, we will gladly follow them. If they, however, through Moses would make us Jews, we will not endure it. What do you think? What will become of this? It will become evident that these factious spirits understand nothing in the Scriptures, neither Moses nor Christ, and neither seek nor find anything therein but their own dreams. And our basis for this assertion is from St. Paul (I Tim. 1[:9]), “The law is not laid down for the just” (which a Christian is). And Peter (Acts 15[:10–11]), “Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” With this saying (as Paul with his) Peter abrogates for the Christian the whole of Moses with all his laws.
Yes, you say, that is perhaps true with respect to the ceremonial and the judicial law, that is, what Moses teaches about the external order of worship or of government. But the decalogue, that is, the Ten Commandments, are not abrogated. There is nothing of ceremonial and judicial law in them. I answer: I know very well that this is an old and common distinction, but it is not an intelligent one. For out of the Ten Commandments flow and depend all the other commandments and the whole of Moses.
Because he would be God alone and have no other gods, etc., he has instituted so many different ceremonies or acts of worship. Through these he has interpreted the first commandment and taught how it is to be kept. To promote obedience to parents, and unwilling to tolerate adultery, murder, stealing, or false witness, he has given the judicial law or external government so that such commandments will be understood and carried out. Thus it is not true that there is no ceremonial or judicial law in the Ten Commandments. Such laws are in the decalogue, depend on it, and belong there. And to indicate this God himself has expressly introduced two ceremonial laws, namely, concerning images and the sabbath. We can show that these two parts are ceremonial laws which are also each in its way abrogated in the New Testament, so that one may see how Dr. Karlstadt deals about as wisely in his book with the sabbath as with images. For St. Paul (Col. 2[:16–17]), speaks frankly and clearly, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come.” Here Paul expressly abrogates the sabbath and calls it a shadow now past since the body, which is Christ himself, is come.
Also, Gal. 4[:10–11], “You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years! I am afraid I have labored over you in vain.” Here Paul calls it lost labor to observe days and seasons, among which is also the sabbath. Isaiah has also prophesied this (Isa. 66[:23]), “From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath,” that is, there shall be a daily sabbath in the New Testament, with no difference as to time.
We must be grateful to Paul and Isaiah, that they so long ago freed us from the factious spirits. Otherwise we should have to sit through the sabbath day with “head in hand” awaiting the heavenly voice, as they would delude us. Yes, if Karlstadt were to write more about the sabbath, even Sunday would have to give way, and the sabbath, that is, Saturday, would be celebrated. He would truly make us Jews in all things, so that we also would have to be circumcised, etc. For it is true, and no one can deny it, that whoever keeps the law of Moses as a law of Moses, or deems it necessary to keep it, must regard the keeping of all laws as necessary, as St. Paul (Gal. 5[:3]) concludes and says, “Every man who receives circumcision—he is bound to keep the whole law.” Therefore also, whoever destroys images, or observes the sabbath (that is, whoever teaches that it must be kept), he also must let himself be circumcised and keep the whole Mosaic law. In time (where one leaves room for these spirits) they would surely be compelled to do, teach, and observe this. However, by God’s grace they now do even as St. Paul says (Gal. 6[:13]), “For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh.” Thus the image breakers themselves do not keep the law. For just as they fail to keep all the other laws, so also they destroy images unspiritually, as a work, so that they lose Christ, the fulfilment of the law, and seek only that they may attain a glory in us, as if they had taught something excellent and masterful.
Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 40: Luther's works, vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (40:92). Philadelphia: Fortress Press)

Addendum
This section from Luther contains a very popular obscure quote:  "We don’t want to see or hear Moses." Roman Catholics cited it frequently over the years (see for instance, Patrick O’Hare, The Facts About Luther [Illinois: Tan Books, 1987], 202).Karlstadt joined with radical factions of the Anabaptists. When Luther did not support Karlstadt’s violent expunging of all images, Karlstadt accused Luther of disobeying God’s law given through Moses: “You shall not make yourself a graven image, or any likeness …” Luther responded by pointing out that Karlstadt misunderstood his position, as well as misinterpreted Moses. Luther, well heated up says:

“Now then, let us get to the bottom of it all and say that these teachers of sin and Mosaic prophets are not to confuse us with Moses. We don’t want to see or hear Moses. How do you like that, my dear rebels? We say further, that all such Mosaic teachers deny the gospel, banish Christ, and annul the whole New Testament. I now speak as a Christian for Christians. For Moses is given to the Jewish people alone, and does not concern us Gentiles and Christians. We have our gospel and New Testament. If they can prove from them that images must be put away, we will gladly follow them. If they, however, through Moses would make us Jews, we will not endure it” LW 40:91].

The “teachers of sin and Mosaic prophets” are Karlstadt and the Anabaptists. Luther viewed these people as denying the gospel and imposing law on people. The editors of Luther’s Works have included an excellent overview of Luther’s opinion on Moses: “Anyone who, like the enthusiasts, erects Mosaic law as a biblical-divine requirement does injury to the preaching of Christ. Just as the Judaizers of old, who would have required circumcision as an initial requirement, so also the enthusiasts and radicals of this later era do not see that Christ is the end of the Mosaic law. For all the stipulations of that law, insofar as they go beyond the natural law, have been abolished by Christ. The Ten Commandments are binding upon all men only so far as they are implanted in everyone by nature. In this sense Luther declares that “Moses is dead”[ Source: LW 35:158]. for more information see:

Luther And The Law: Did Martin Luther Abhor God's Law? (Part One)- A look at four Luther quotes used by Roman Catholics to prove Luther hatred God's Law. The quotes are given contexts and explanations to prove mis-usage by Roman Catholics.

Luther And The Law: Did Martin Luther Abhor God's Law? (Part Two)- A look at Luther's understanding of the Law and its place in the Christian life.

Luther: Denying Sola Scriptura With An Unbiblical Understanding Of The Word "Prophet"?

“I am not given to having or interpreting dreams, nor do I desire this faculty or knowledge. I have made a covenant with my Lord God that He send me neither visions nor dreams nor even angels. For I am well satisfied with the gifts of Holy Scripture, which gives me abundant instruction and plentifully supplies all that I need to know both for this life and for that which is to come. This Holy Scripture I believe, and with it I am satisfied. And I am certain that it will not deceive me.” – Martin Luther


“I do not claim to be a prophet, but I do say that the more they scorn me and the higher they regard themselves, the more reason they have to fear that I may be a prophet. God is marvelous in his works and judgments. He pays attention neither to numbers, greatness, cunning, or power. As Ps. 138[:6] says: “The haughty he knows from afar.” And even if I am not a prophet, as far as I am concerned I am sure that the Word of God is with me and not with them, for I have the Scriptures on my side and they have only their own doctrine.” Martin Luther

This is a follow up to my entry Martin Luther and Ellen G. White: Prophets? This overview doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference to the Seventh Day Adventist pastor over on the CARM boards for whom it was intended. Without responding to the material, he has moved on to another phase of argument:

“You seem pretty fair-minded…are you saying that Luther allows himself to be called a prophet, but creates his own definition of what a prophet is apart from Sola Scriptura?”

Rather than admitting his previous argumentation was faulty, he found another way to argue for the sake of arguing. Now that he can’t use Luther as a prophet and Ellen White as a prophet is the same sense, might as well go after Luther for being inconsistent with his dedication to sola scriptura, and his understanding of the word “prophet.” Here’s the argument:

A. Luther believed in sola scriptura.
B. Luther’s definition of prophet is unbiblical
C. Luther denied sola scriptura by creating a non-biblical definition of a biblical term.

The term prophet is rich in meaning, and Luther realized this. For instance, here Luther uses the term to refer to those in the Bible that received their teaching immediately from God:

“That person is called a prophet who has an immediate knowledge of God and into whose mouth the Holy Spirit puts the Word; for He is the source of their knowledge, and prophets have no other teacher than God. No one can make a prophet by human teaching or preaching; and though it is God’s word and I preach it with perfect purity, I still do not make a man a prophet. A wise and understanding man I can make him. Thus in Matt. 23:34 those are called wise who draw their doctrine from the prophets, for God speaks through people and not without means. But prophets are men who have their teaching immediately from God” (What Luther Says, entry 3654).

“Prophets are those who preach by direct inspiration of the Holy spirit, who have not drawn from Scripture of from other men.” (What Luther Says, entry 3656).

Of what the Prophets said:

“The office of the prophets was twofold. First they were to exhort, rebuke, and correct the people of their time. This is the preaching of the Law. Then they were to prophesy concerning the coming kingdom of Christ” (What Luther Says, entry 3661).

These are only a few quotes of many. Obviously, Luther understood the special role and attributes of a true Biblical prophet. In my earlier entry, I pointed out that Luther did not consider himself to be a prophet in the sense of Enoch or Elijah. He was not receiving information immediately from God.

How then did Luther call himself a prophet? I earlier explained Luther at times made statements saying he was a prophet, but not in the sense of giving extra-biblical divine revelation. He would liken himself to Elijah, only in the sense that he was proclaiming the same word of God Elijah did. Robert Kolb explains Luther’s reasoning:

“In 1522 [Luther] claimed, in his Church Postil sermon on Hebrews 1:1-12, that Elijah would not return bodily from the grave. Instead, ‘it would be his spirit, that is, the Word of God would be brought forward once again, as it is appearing in this present time” [Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer 1520-1560 (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 32].

To substantiate Kolb’s point, here is the relevant section of Luther’s sermon:

9. But first we must answer the inquiry liable to be made, “If the voice of God today is the last message, why is it said that Elijah and Enoch shall come, opposing Antichrist?” I answer: Concerning the advent of Elijah, I hold that he will not come in a physical manner. [As to the coming of Elijah I am suspended between heaven and earth, but I am inclined to believe it will not take place bodily. However, I will not contend hard against the other view. Each may believe or not believe it, as he likes. Editions, A, C, D, E.] I well know St. Augustine has somewhere said, “The advent of Elijah and of Antichrist is firmly fixed in the belief of all Christians.” But I also know there is no statement of Scripture to substantiate his assertion.

Malachi’s prophecy concerning the coming of Elijah ( Malachi 4:5) the angel Gabriel makes refer to John the Baptist ( Luke 1:17), and Christ does the same even more explicitly where he says ( Mark 9:13): “But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would, even as it is written of him.” Now, if John is the Elijah of the prophecy, as the Lord here says he was, the prediction of Malachi is already fulfilled. And there is nothing more prophesied concerning the coming of Elijah. The statement the Lord made just previously to the one quoted, “Elijah indeed cometh first, and restoreth all things,” may be fairly interpreted to mean that Christ, referring to the office of John, practically says: “Yes, I well know Elijah must first come and restore all things, but he has already come and accomplished it.”

10. This view is demanded by the fact that immediately after his reference to the coming and office of Elijah, Christ speaks of his own sufferings: “It is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at naught.” If this prophecy concerning Christ was to be fulfilled after the coming of Elijah, then certainly Elijah must have already come. I know of nothing more to expect concerning the coming of Elijah unless it might be that his spirit will be manifest again in the power of the Word of God, as now seems probable. For I have no longer any doubt that the Pope, with the Turks, is Antichrist, whatever you may believe.

Martin Luther and Ellen G. White: Prophets?

Over on a discussion board, a friend pointed out a Seventh Day Adventist minister arguing their prophet, Ellen G. White, is an “…authoritative source of truth despite errors and contradictions to the Bible, by pointing out that Luther considered himself a prophet but still had erroneous statements.” In other words, Luther was a prophet who erred, but Protestants don’t devalue him. Similarly, Ellen White was a prophet who erred, she likewise, should not be devalued.

This SDA minister posted the following to substantiate his assertions:

Martin Luther was considered (and considered himself) a prophet. I couldn't remember exactly where it was that I read that,but browsing through an old Spectrum magazine I found who said it--the source of the idea that Ellen White's visions were the result of seizures--Molleurus Couperus. Here's the quotation:

"Nearly all Protestant churches have had at least one outstanding leader whose dedication to what he considered his divinely ordained work and message was apparent to all. In spite of the fact that these men made mistakes and erred, their grateful and admiring followers awarded them a place of unusual authority in their church, particularly in matters of Biblical interpretation and doctrine. This was especially true of Luther and Calvin. Martin Luther, for instance, was called "an instrument of God," "a prophet of the Almighty" and an "apostle of freedom." Luther also applied the title of prophet to himself occasionally. His prophecies were gathered together by Johannes Lapäus and published by him in 1578 under the title True Prophecies of the Dear Prophet and Holy Man of God Dr. Martini Luther. This book was republished in 1846. Hans Preuss in 1933 wrote a scholarly volume entitled Martin Luther the Prophet, in which he lists the prominent theologians who called Luther a prophet, both before and after the Enlightenment. During the last century, Luther was more often called apostle or reformer. As time went on after Luther's death and scholars were able to study and compare the astounding size of Luther's writings (his published works fill more than 60 volumes), a critical evaluation was possible of the nature and extent of his contribution to the Christian church. In all this, he has remained the Reformer, the great Man of God (Spectrum, vol. 10, num. 1, p. 23)."

...Luther--the man of mistakes and errors, who sometimes styled himself a prophet.

A Response
A helpful work on this subject was done by Lutheran scholar, Robert Kolb: Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer 1520-1560 (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999). Kolb notes at times Luther referred to himself not only as a prophet, but also an apostle:

“[Luther] did not regard himself as a Herculean hero. But he did assume the epistolary style of saint Paul as early as 1522, and he drew parallels between the career of the apostle and his own career, moving out of works-righteousness into the proclamation of the gospel of God’s grace. Furthermore, he could call himself a prophet of the German, an apostle and evangelist in German territory, an Isaiah or Jeremiah. Yet Luther did not always possess this prophetic self-confidence. He often engaged in self-examination. He was plagued by repeated doubts about his own person. Yet he could also state, ‘I do not say that I am a prophet…But if I am not a prophet, I am nevertheless certain for myself that the Word of God is with me and not with them, for I indeed have Scriptures on my side.’” (p. 31)

But before we thank our Seventh Day Adventist friend for such a wonderful comparative insight, and we then apologize for our treatment of Ellen White, Kolb then says:

“Luther’s concept of himself as a prophet differed, therefore, from the medieval eschatological vision of the prophet who was to come. His claims to the calling of apostle or prophet rested solely on his proclamation of the gospel. For him, what mattered was God’s word.” (p.31)

“Luther had no illusions about being an Enoch or Elijah returned from the grave…. What counted for Luther- and what linked him in his own mind with Elijah- was the Word of God in their mouths. He was firmly convinced that his tongue and pen proclaimed the same Word of God which Elijah proclaimed. Only because of this could he place himself in the ranks of prophets and apostles. Thus, much of the medieval notion of the prophet was not of importance for Luther. He claimed to possess no special gift beyond the Word which had been present in the mouths of the biblical prophets. His estimate of himself, as constructive promoter of the gospel or as destructive critic of false teaching, was only and only connected with the Word of God.” (p.31-32).

There was a strand of Lutherans, dating all the way back to the early Reformation period that saw Luther as a true, Biblical prophet. They produced books, and after Luther's death, some of them even viewed Luther's writings as the only sure way to interpret Scripture.  I linked to one of these works a few months back: The Prophecies of Martin Luther

The Adventist quote above refers to a book by Johannes Lapäus True Prophecies of the Dear Prophet and Holy Man of God Dr. Martini Luther (1578). Kolb explains Lapäus was a village pastor and published collections of Luther’s prophecies “…in order to bring his call of repentance and the comfort of the Gospel to the people of Germany” (p.181). Lapäus quoted late medieval figures who he thinks prophesied of the coming of Luther (Huss and Hilten). Added to this were accounts from Luther’s contemporaries claiming his gift of prophecy. This was done to “prove” Luther’s true gift.

A large portion of Kolb’s book deals with men like this, who turned Luther into an oracle of God. Kolb states, “[Some Lutherans] had no problems transferring authority to him and to his writings. Luther’s prophetic office, his living voice, expressed the gospel for his followers” (p.33)

Regardless of what some Lutherans thought, Luther did not consider himself a prophet giving new revelation from God. When Luther proclaimed sola scriptura, he really meant it. Thus, to compare Ellen White and Luther is farcical. Ellen White did claim extra-biblical revelation, and she made mistakes.

Revised 2/2022 

Luther’s Understanding of “Soul Sleep” (Part Three)

In this entry, I’d like to take a look at Luther’s understanding of "soul sleep."

"Soul sleep" is the idea that after death the soul "sleeps" until the final resurrection. The soul is said to hibernate until the resurrection when it is then awakened and reunited with its body. Did Luther believe this? The answer is yes, speculatively. He did so in somewhat undogmatic terms, always cautioning his readers that we don’t have full understanding of this subject. At times he also says things that contradict "soul sleep." Luther knew that describing the state of the dead was speculative theology. The state of the dead was prone to wild speculation during his time. He would not join in to such folly.

This can be seen early in his career in a letter to Nicholas von Amsdorf (January 13, 1522). Luther responded to the question of what happens to the soul after death. Note how Luther responds cautiously:

Concerning your “souls,” I have not enough [insight into the problem] to answer you.  I am inclined to agree with your opinion that the souls of the just are asleep and that they do not know where they are up to the Day of Judgment. I am drawn to this opinion by the word of Scripture, “They sleep with their fathers.”  The dead who were raised by Christ and by the apostles testify to this fact,  since they were as if they had just awakened from sleep and didn’t know where they had been. To this must be added the ecstatic experiences of many saints. I have nothing with which I could overthrow this opinion. But I do not dare to affirm that this is true for all souls in general, because of the ecstasy of Paul,  and the ascension of Elijah and of Moses (who certainly did not appear as phantoms on Mount Tabor). Who knows how God deals with the departed souls? Can’t [God] just as well make them sleep on and off (or for as long as he wishes [them to sleep]), just as he overcomes with sleep those who live in the flesh? And again, that passage in Luke 16 [:23 ff.] concerning Abraham and Lazarus, although it does not force the assumption of a universal [capacity of feeling on the part of the departed],yet it attributes a capacity of feeling to Abraham and Lazarus, and it is hard to twist this passage to refer to the Day of Judgment.

I think the same about the condemned souls; some may feel punishments immediately after death, but others may be spared from [punishments] until that Day [of Judgment]. For the reveler [in that parable] confesses that he is tortured;  and the Psalm says, “Evil will catch up with the unjust man when he perishes.” You perhaps also refer this either to the Day of Judgment or to the passing anguish of physical death. Then my opinion would be that this is uncertain. It is most probable, however, that with few exceptions, all [departed souls] sleep without possessing any capacity of feeling. Consider now who the “spirits in prison” were to whom Christ preached, as Peter writes:  Could they not also sleep until the Day [of Judgment]?  Yet when Jude says concerning the Sodomites that they suffer the pain of eternal fire, he is speaking of a present [fire]."[LW 48:360-361].

Note above, for Luther, the soul does sleep, but he does make exceptions. As Paul Althaus explains, 

Some Bible passages do compel Luther to make certain exceptions to the rule that the dead sleep. God can also awaken them for a time- just as he allows those of us here upon the earth to alternate between waking and sleeping. And the fact that they are asleep does not hinder souls from experiencing visions and from hearing God and the angels speak [Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 415].

 Above Luther also says, “It is most probable, however, that with few exceptions, all [departed souls] sleep without possessing any capacity of feeling.” Elsewhere though he is recorded as saying, "It’s true that souls hear, feel, and see after death, but how this occurs we don’t understand," (LW 54:446-447). Luther thus made contrary statements that even in death, the believer still consciously knows God and serves Him. This can be seen in a comment made in his last lectures on Genesis:

For how is Abraham a servant of God after his death? Will God not be able eventually to forget Abraham? Today he certainly still serves God, just as Adam, Abel, and Noah serve God. And this must be carefully noted; for it is divine truth that Abraham is living, serving God, and ruling with Him. But what the nature of that life is, whether he is asleep or awake, is another question. We do not have to know how the soul rests. It is certain that it is alive. [LW 5:74].

Ewald Plass says Luther held a “paradoxical, if not, incongruous, conclusion” on the state of the dead [What Luther Says I: 385]. He cites this comment from Luther’s last lectures on Genesis:

But now another question arises. Since it is certain that the souls are living and are in peace, what kind of life or rest is this? But this question is too lofty and too difficult for us to be able to define it. For God did not want us to know this in this life. Thus it is enough for us to know that souls do not go out of their bodies into the danger of tortures and punishments of hell, but that there is ready for them a chamber in which they may sleep in peace.

Nevertheless, there is a difference between the sleep or rest of this life and that of the future life. For toward night a person who has become exhausted by his daily labor in this life enters into his chamber in peace, as it were, to sleep there; and during this night he enjoys rest and has no knowledge whatever of any evil caused either by fire or by murder. But the soul does not sleep in the same manner. It is awake. It experiences visions and the discourses of the angels and of God. Therefore the sleep in the future life is deeper than it is in this life. Nevertheless, the soul lives before God. With this analogy, which I have from the sleep of a living person, I am satisfied; for in him there is peace and quiet. He thinks that he has slept barely one or two hours, and yet he sees that the soul sleeps in such a manner that it also is awake, [LW 4:313].

But what of those who reject Christ? Do they go to immediate damnation? Luther again responds cautiously, noting he is undecided when they receive punishment:

…[W]hen the ungodly die, whether they have departed long ago, before the coming of Christ, or today, after Christ has been revealed, they go simply to damnation. But we do not know whether their damnation begins immediately after death; for it is written (Rom. 14:10) that all will have to stand before the judgment seat, and John 5:29 states: “Those who have done good will come forth to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

Accordingly, we should remember that after Christ the bosom of Abraham has come to an end and that all the promises about the coming Seed have been fulfilled. We have other and far more glorious promises that were given us by the Son of God, who became incarnate, suffered, and was raised again. If we do not believe these, we are condemned forever. But I am unable to say positively in what state those are who are condemned in the New Testament. I leave this undecided.[LW 4:316].

His writing on the subject also vacillates. Commenting on the departed Urbanus Rhegius in 1542, Luther says, “We are to know that he is blessed and that he has eternal life and eternal joy and participation with Christ in the heavenly Church. For now he has learned, seen with his own eyes, and heard those things which he here in the church on earth explained according to God’s word” (English translation from Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 415; cf. WA 53:400; LW 59:271]. Also speaking of another departed person in 1532, “Sickness carried him off to heaven to our Lord Jesus Christ” [Althaus, 415; cf. Luther's Letters of Spiritual Counsel, 64]. Althaus notes that Luther held time was irrelevant from the eternal perspective. For those who die, their awakening from “soul sleep” is felt as immediate. Luther says, “Here you must put time out of your mind and know that in that world there is neither time nor a measurement of time, but everything is one eternal moment” [Althaus, 416; WA 10.3:194].

What can be concluded of Luther’s view? Luther’s position on this subject is undogmatic. He considers the subject speculative theology. Hence, his opinion doesn’t always add up, nor does he care if they do or not. What can be said of Seventh Day Adventist usage of Luther on this point? I suggest they incorrectly present a dogmatic Luther who uses “soul sleep” to refute purgatory and saint worship, which I maintain is not the case. To use Luther correctly, they should at least note Luther’s opinion was speculative and undogmatic. He didn’t approach the text of Scripture with the same certainty on “soul sleep” they do. Luther doesn’t even have the same theological motivations for the doctrine of “soul sleep” that the Adventists do. What motivates the Adventists on this doctrine? What motivated Luther? These seem to be crucial questions for anyone wishing to use Luther as an authority.

Re-edited July 2025, references fixed.  

The Seventh Day Adventist Luther (Part Two)

This is a continuation of my examination of Seventh Day Adventists using Luther to establish their doctrines of ‘soul sleep’ and the mortality of the soul. Part one can be found here: The Seventh Day Adventist Luther: Soul Sleep and the Immortality of the Soul(Part One)

In part one I took a look at a discussion thread started by an Adventist, and also an Adventist web document named Martin Luther and William Tyndale on the State of the Dead. I contacted both authors to let them know I would be taking a look at their historical material on Luther. I have been hopeful that the author of the web document would respond- he hasn’t…. yet. But the Adventist who started the discussion did. In a blog back he stated:

“Interesting conclusions you have drawn but as a Seventh-day Adventist and the one who started the thread about Luther and "soul sleep" I do not put Luther above what he was. In other words I am not appealing to Luther to establish any Adventist credibility. I support what Luther said in manmy[sic] things and disagree on others. "soul sleep" and moratilty[sic.] of the soul is Biblical.”

One has to simply ask then, why bring up Luther at all? Why should his opinion matter? Elsewhere in the same discussion he also stated:

“Amazing to think that it is now about 500 years since the great reformer gave us so much light about the gospel.”

"It does not matter what I say or what even Luther says. I quoted this to show everyone that the Protestant reformers believed in the Bible.”

My point stands: Luther is being used in an attempt to give validity to the Adventist position. Simply because this Adventist denies this does not mean he’s not doing it. If this isn't the case, why bring up Luther?

In part one I demonstrated that some of the historical information being utilized by these Adventists was not accurate. I would further point out that some of the information they use is being selectively cited. In the web document Martin Luther and William Tyndale on the State of the Dead, the author cites Hugh Kerr’s book A Compend of Luther’s Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943). Kerr’s book is a helpful, short, anthology of Luther citations. Chapter 11 deals specifically with Luther’s eschatology- not though, in detail. The Adventist web document provides this Luther citation from Kerr’s book:

“We should learn to view our death in the right light, so that we need not become alarmed on account of it, as unbelief does; because in Christ it is indeed not death, but a fine, sweet and brief sleep, which brings us release from this vale of tears, from sin and from the fear and extremity of real death and from all the misfortunes of this life, and we shall be secure and without care, rest sweetly and gently for a brief moment, as on a sofa, until the time when he shall call and awaken us together with all his dear children to his eternal glory and joy. For since we call it a sleep, we know that we shall not remain in it, but be again awakened and live, and that the time during which we sleep, shall seem no longer than if we had just fallen asleep. Hence, we shall censure ourselves that we were surprised or alarmed at such a sleep in the hour of death, and suddenly come alive out of the grave and from decomposition, and entirely well, fresh, with a pure, clear, glorified life, meet our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the clouds . . .
Scripture everywhere affords such consolation, which speaks of the death of the saints, as if they fell asleep and were gathered to their fathers, that is, had overcome death through this faith and comfort in Christ, and awaited the resurrection, together with the saints who preceded them in death.—A Compend of Luther's Theology, edited by Hugh Thomson Ker[sic.], Jr., p. 242."

Now, I realize I have yet to directly tackle Luther’s view of soul sleep. But if I were quoting this book, I would make sure to read all the Luther citations on Luther’s understanding of the soul after death that Kerr provides (which are only a few). Had the author wanted to use this compend to establish Luther’s view, one wonders why he didn’t begin with the citation found one page before (241):

“It is true that souls hear, perceive, and see after death; but how it is done, we do not understand… If we undertake to give an account of such things after the manner of this life, then we are fools. Christ has given a good answer; for his disciples were without doubt just as curious. ‘He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live,’ (John xi.25); likewise: ‘Whether we live, or whether we die, we are the Lord’s,’ (Rom. Xiv.8)… ‘The soul of Abraham lives with God, his body lies here dead,’ it would be a distintion which to my mind is mere rot! I will dispute it. One must say: ‘The whole Abraham, the entire man, lives!’ – Conversations with Luther, pp.122 f.”

Source: Hugh Kerr, A Compend of Luther’s Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943), 241

Now, one has to deal with information that contradicts one’s own position. The Adventists have to deal with the citations from Luther that also denies their position on soul sleep. The next blog entry will look specifically at Luther’s understanding of the soul at death.