Introduction

The debate between Luther and Erasmus was basically about to what degree, if any, a sinner can freely prepare him/herself for the reception of divine grace. When rejecting the bull of Pope Leo X, Luther had used an exaggerating deterministic or necessitarian theological language which alarmed Erasmus. Erasmus concentrated on the application of God’s grace into the human situation “from below”; Luther, on the contrary, focused on the theocentric nature of grace “from above.” Erasmus promoted the commonly accepted rational view of Late Medieval Catholic soteriology: “to those who do what they can God does not deny his grace,” God’s justice requires that he necessarily grant grace to anyone who freely prepares him/herself to receive it, while Luther spoke the language of Biblical realism: Although human will is free in relation to the natural world, the human being is captivated by the overwhelming power of unfaith, sin, and Satan, being incapable of changing his/her ultimate psychic orientation. In his criticism Luther rehabilitated Augustine’s teaching on the radical limits of human freedom and on the Pneumatological dynamism of divine grace, the view neglected in Medieval theology. Research on Luther’s The Bondage of the Will has not recognized the strong Pneumatological and Trinitarian accent of his theology. Instead, the contradiction between Luther and Erasmus has been explained in philosophical terms such as free will, determinism, necessity, and predestination; this has not revealed the true nature of the profoundly theological conflict between the two “forms of Christianity.” The work at hand makes critical comments on Luther research of the last hundred years and launches the task of a detailed and thorough systematic-theological analysis of the major treatise of Luther.

Is there Any Possibility of Reconciliation between Erasmus and Luther?

After five centuries, would it be possible to see any chance of reconciliation between Erasmus and Luther? Looking at this question from the point of view of the three dimensions of the doctrine of grace, we might say some hopeful words. As to the first (1) dimension of grace, at many points even Erasmus admits that human choice must be empowered by God’s grace in order to move in the direction willed by God. But here the real difference is that, for Erasmus, free choice is enabled by the grace given in the creation and it is still naturally efficient in the sinners, whereas Luther sees that there is no freedom because of the human being’s enslavement by unfaith —there is a need for the efficient prevenient movement of the Holy Spirit which alone can create faith. As to the second (2) dimension of grace, following the Catholic tradition, Erasmus knows the conception of (2a) the forensic-juridical forgiveness of sins based on the atonement by the cross of Christ—in this respect there is no real point of controversy between the two. But Erasmus knows nothing about (2b) the union of the sinner with Christ in the Holy Spirit, the Trinitarian participatory conception of justification, central for Luther. In respect to the third (3) dimension of grace, both see possible the cooperation of the believer with God, the difference being Erasmus’ more anthropocentric concept of sanctification if compared with Luther’s emphasis of growth in love enabled by the Holy Spirit.

Luther’s Theological Method of Conflict and Distinction

Luther’s method of theology is that of Scriptural interpretation. Erasmus complains that Scripture is obscure, an authoritative tradition is needed to interpret it. Luther confirms both the external and internal clarity of Scripture itself: “External clarity” is guaranteed by the public proclamation of God’s word; the natural meaning of the “text published to the entire world” is found in the very letter of Scripture. “Internal clarity” guarantees that the same Holy Spirit who inspired the canonical authors “internally moves” the hearer of the word granting him/her participation in Christological grace. The Spirit-inspired word is an efficient carrier of Trinitarian grace that changes its hearers. In contrast to the skeptical view of Erasmus, Luther uses the assertive propositions of Scripture as a means of assuring theocentric salvation. Because of its double clarity, “Scripture alone,” sola Scriptura, is a sufficient norm for the truth of the gospel. Another central feature of Luther’s theological method in The Bondage of the Will is his view of the conflict between the opposing transcendental powers which fight over the control of the human beings: the Triune God’s goodness, love, and grace against unfaith, sin, and Satan. Only God’s Spirit can liberate the sinner from captivity by unfaith and evil. Erasmusnever mentions God’s Spirit when discussing grace, and there is no mention of Satan in his treatise. Moreover, the distinction between the “things below oneself” and the “things above oneself” is crucial for Luther’s understanding of law and gospel; Erasmus makes no distinction between the two realms.

Conclusion

The present study has established a new understanding of Luther’s theological paradigm in his major work. Luther’s comprehensive understanding of the Trinitarian theology of grace, with special emphasis on Pneumatology, alongside the more obvious Christology, and together with a strong link with the theology of creation, is the fundamental thought structure of his magnum opus. The analysis has established an understanding of a three-dimensional structure of Luther’s Trinitarian doctrine of grace. Luther’s emphasis of prevenient grace and his combination of the forensic and participatory aspects of justification were his alternative to the Late Medieval doctrine of grace, which focused on the anthropological conditions for receiving God’s grace. Luther research has seen the participatory aspect (donum) as a term indicating an “effective change” in the believer; the present work shows that participation and forensic imputation (favor) belong together, enabling each other as the two complementary dimensions of the alien justice of Christ; the change, sanctification, comes as a fruit of that. Luther is a passionate defender of a radical doctrine of fully theocentric and monergistic Trinitarian grace; in order to maintain the clear principle of sola gratia, this doctrine must necessarily be Trinitarian. For Luther, this is the core of the Christian truth. The work at hand is the first piece of research revealing the centrality of Pneumatology and of the Trinitarian conception of grace, undermined in the previous research. The chapter includes a concluding encounter with Luther research. The Trinitarian doctrine of grace intensifies the ecumenical potential of Luther’s theology.

The Trinitarian Nature of the Pneumatological Grace

In his magnum opus Luther follows the Trinitarian logic of John and Paul in the New Testament and the Patristic teaching on the indivisibility of the works of the three persons of the Trinity. When the Holy Spirit of the Father and of the Son makes known Christ, he simultaneously makes known the Father who sent his Son. The mission of the Son depends entirely on his Father who sent him, and the mission of the Son becomes effective only in the power of the Holy Spirit. Only the Spirit makes Christ together with his gifts truly present in the human person, without the Spirit, Christological grace has no impact on the sinner—Christological grace and Pneumatological grace are inseparable and simultaneous. Luther expresses the same truth both in Pneumatological and in Christological terms, the chapter at hand displays extensive evidence on this coincidence. Moreover, Luther creates an explicit analogy between the creation of the universe and of the work of the Holy Spirit enabling the new birth or rebirth of the sinner. The universe was created “from nothing” by the monergistic power of the Triune God, so is the conversion and the faith of the sinner created ex nihilo by God’s Spirit. As human beings “did nothing to create themselves,” likewise they cannot do anything to “newly create” themselves from unbelief to faith; any notion of free choice collapses. The ability of creation and that of new creation are divine properties only: “Let God be God!”

A Theology of Paradoxes

Why does God’s Spirit grant the gift of faith to some but not to others? Erasmus solved the dilemma by admitting minimal freedom to the human side, a wrong use of free choice is to be blamed. This is the way of maintaining credibility in the justice of God. Luther’s solution to the dilemma was a distinction between the concepts of “the revealed God,” Deus revelatus, and of “the hidden God,” Deus absconditus. On the notitia level, i.e. in regard to knowing who is elected, we are in total darkness; it is a secret of the hidden majesty. We are restricted to the usus level of election, i.e. to revelation which says that God wills everyone to be saved. God’s will does not follow any human logic of justice, God’s will itself is the norm for itself and cannot be subjected to any rule outside itself. Asking why God does what he does is a concern arising from religious pride; the sovereignty of the divine will utterly annihilates speculation about any grounds for bargaining with God. Luther follows the paradigm of “the theology of the cross”: Anyone who has become “desperate about him/herself” is, paradoxically, already in the state of grace. This paradox brings about certainty of salvation: God has taken the question of salvation completely “outside ourselves” into his hands, this results in peace in the scruples of salvation, the believer is liberated from “the pestilence of uncertainty.” Luther prefers the Biblical term “election” to the philosophical concept “predestination.”

Erasmus and Luther

For Erasmus, the relationship between God and the human being is rationally and morally acceptable fair play in which both parties have their responsibilities. He follows the teaching of Nominalism: God has promised to grant his grace to anyone who does the minimum that he/she naturally can for receiving grace. “Free choice” means that the human being has the capability of applying him/herself to the things which lead to eternal salvation or turning away from them.Impenitence is a sin that can never be forgiven; moral deeds “attract” grace. For Luther, freedom in moral decisions plays a crucial role in the human community “in front of the world and people,” in relation to the “things below oneself.” But the human being is not free in his/her relation to the “things above oneself,” “in front of God,” or facing the power of unfaith, sin, and demonic evil. Should there be any change in the human’s relation to the realities “above oneself,” it is always a work of God’s prevenient grace effected by the Holy Spirit. Faith is a “new creation” infused into human hearts by God’s Spirit; sola fide is fully a Pneumatological reality for Luther—a fact overlooked in Luther research. The Spirit establishes an intimate union between the Triune God and the human being. Luther creates a massive defense of God’s sovereign grace, sola gratia. The doctrine of two “kingdoms” is the backbone of Luther’s thinking. Erasmus did not make such a distinction; consequently, law and gospel get mixed.

A Comprehensive View of Luther’s Doctrine of Grace

This chapter offers a comprehensive presentation of the three dimensions of Luther’s Trinitarian doctrine of grace. (1) The conversion of the sinner and the birth of faith in Christ, justification “through faith alone,” is effected by prevenient grace, the sole work of God’s Spirit. (2) Participation in (2a) the cross and resurrection of Christ as well as in his (2b) person, life, and divine properties, are possible solely because of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer. Justification means simultaneously (2a) the forensic declaration of the guilty non-guilty on the basis of the atonement by Jesus’ cross (favor), as well as (2b) a union with Christ in the Holy Spirit (donum). The believer participates both in the person and life of the incarnated Son of God and in the historical facts of salvation in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (3) Sanctification means the gradual growth of love for God and neighbor enabled by participation in divine love in the Holy Spirit who also enables the believer to cooperate with grace. Luther’s dependence on Augustine’s doctrine of grace is pointed out. The three-dimensional structure of Trinitarian grace offers an advancement to the Finnish school of Luther interpretation initiated by Tuomo Mannermaa. His fundamental finding of the participatory nature of justification, rooted in Patristic soteriology, is verified in the present study, but an amendment is also offered, based on a critical analysis of Mannermaa’s interpretation of Luther’s Lectures on Galatians (1531/1535).

The Enslavement of the Human Being

Luther underscores sin as unbelief which cuts off the relationship between the human being and his/her Creator resulting in the imprisonment of the human by sin, death, and transcendental evil. He/she exists in the state of infirmity, incapable of changing his/her basic orientation of life. Sin is weakness, inability to be free. Paradoxically, the enslavement of sin entered humanity when the human being was deceived by an illusion of absolute freedom, independence from the Creator: “man himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.” Erasmus criticized Luther for using the deterministic concept of “absolute necessity.” In fact, Luther is not a determinist, but he uses a hamartiological idea of “the necessity of immutability”: the sinner necessarily must continue to be a captive of unfaith until efficient Pneumatological grace liberates him/her. Luther’s thought does not include any notion of “the necessity of coaction.” The sinner freely enjoys sinning unless changed by God. The necessity of immutability concerns the human being’s relation to the “things above oneself,” not to those “below oneself” where natural freedom of will prevails. Luther represents no theodicy, he leaves open the question about where the ultimate origin of evil will lies. God is not the cause of evil will, but he may sometimes use it as an “instrumental cause” for his good purposes. In Luther’s treatise there is no trace of a doctrine of predestination applied to individual human beings. Any notion of double predestination is impossible in Luther’s doctrine of grace.

Pneumatological Emphasis in the Doctrine of Grace

Luther’s Pneumatologically accentuated view of grace directs its criticism, first, at Nominalism with its teaching on the concept of free choice, and, second, at Scholasticism with its teaching on justification based on the idea of habitual grace in the human soul created by a process of cooperation between divine grace and its human receiver. Luther follows Augustine: Grace means participation in the personal reality of the Spirit of Jesus Christ and of his Father. The presence of Christ in the sinner—his personal righteousness, his divine life, and his gifts of salvation accomplished on his cross and in his resurrection—is the “alien justice” on the basis of which the sinner is imputed as righteous. The favor (forensic forgiveness) and the donum (the indwelling of the Spirit), the Christological and Pneumatological aspects of justification, are simultaneous and inseparable. For Luther, the Late Medieval teaching of grace, represented by Erasmus, is “cheap grace” contrasting salvation sola gratia. Permitting any human role in salvation promotes secret pride and leads to self-righteousness. In the beginning of creation, the Spirit was the provider of the union between the Creator and the human being. He/she was fully dependent on God’s Spirit, there was no freedom in relation the “things above him/herself.” Sin broke off the relationship, and the humans lost God’s Spirit; consequently, the “slavery of God” was replaced by the slavery of unfaith. The humans became mortal, flesh cannot exist eternally without God’s Spirit; the re-entrance of the Spirit changes the situation.