Several days ago @Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 suggested that Luther firmly held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Throughout the past decade this claim has been made of many even when, like with Luther, most theologians disagree.
Often people make the mistake of seeing common language and placing another's words within their own contest to find common ground that may not actually exist.
I wanted to look at bit at Luther. In reality Luther held a Substitution Theory that leaned very close (if not there) to Christus Victor.
I wonder how many would read the following and assume Luther's position was Penal Substitution Theory.
What here excludes Luther from holding Penal Substitution?
"But now, if God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain grace and forgiveness, some one must merit this; for God cannot be a friend of sin nor gracious to it, nor can he remit the punishment and wrath, unless payment and satisfaction be made.
Now, no one, not even an angel of heaven, could make restitution for the infinite and irreparable injury and appease the eternal wrath of God which we had merited by our sins; except that eternal person, the Son of God himself, and he could do it only by taking our place, assuming our sins, and answering for them as though he himself were guilty of them.
This our dear Lord and only Saviour and Mediator before God, Jesus Christ, did for us by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation. (Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 2, p. 344)
One fairly obvious issue is Luther's use of "satisfaction" and "merit". These were the main two areas Calvin reformed from Aquinas' theory when developing Penal Substitution Theory. Here Luther is sticking very close to Thomas Aquinas rather than John Calvin.
Jesus worked out our salvation through merit. In Luther's other writings we see this was by humbling Himself and becoming obedient to God. Christ obtained what men could not (and we can also hear hints of Luther's focus on justification by faith alone as Jesus merited where we could only fail).
Luther remains very close to Aquinas' theory, focused on merit and satisfaction - the two issues Calvin reworked in developing Penal Substitution Theory.
While the language is similar the theories are very different.
1. How was the sin and wrath dealt with? Punishment? No. It was outweighed by Christ's merit. It was swallowed up.
Other questions to consider:
1. Whose punishment was Jesus suffering?
2. To whom was Christ's suffering and death and answer?
3. What is the basis of our salvation?
Often people make the mistake of seeing common language and placing another's words within their own contest to find common ground that may not actually exist.
I wanted to look at bit at Luther. In reality Luther held a Substitution Theory that leaned very close (if not there) to Christus Victor.
I wonder how many would read the following and assume Luther's position was Penal Substitution Theory.
What here excludes Luther from holding Penal Substitution?
"But now, if God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain grace and forgiveness, some one must merit this; for God cannot be a friend of sin nor gracious to it, nor can he remit the punishment and wrath, unless payment and satisfaction be made.
Now, no one, not even an angel of heaven, could make restitution for the infinite and irreparable injury and appease the eternal wrath of God which we had merited by our sins; except that eternal person, the Son of God himself, and he could do it only by taking our place, assuming our sins, and answering for them as though he himself were guilty of them.
This our dear Lord and only Saviour and Mediator before God, Jesus Christ, did for us by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation. (Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 2, p. 344)
One fairly obvious issue is Luther's use of "satisfaction" and "merit". These were the main two areas Calvin reformed from Aquinas' theory when developing Penal Substitution Theory. Here Luther is sticking very close to Thomas Aquinas rather than John Calvin.
Jesus worked out our salvation through merit. In Luther's other writings we see this was by humbling Himself and becoming obedient to God. Christ obtained what men could not (and we can also hear hints of Luther's focus on justification by faith alone as Jesus merited where we could only fail).
Luther remains very close to Aquinas' theory, focused on merit and satisfaction - the two issues Calvin reworked in developing Penal Substitution Theory.
While the language is similar the theories are very different.
1. How was the sin and wrath dealt with? Punishment? No. It was outweighed by Christ's merit. It was swallowed up.
Other questions to consider:
1. Whose punishment was Jesus suffering?
2. To whom was Christ's suffering and death and answer?
3. What is the basis of our salvation?
Last edited: