Luther’s Untimely Absence

At the close of the Edict of Worms on April 15, 1531, Emperor Charles V was determined to use his influence to call a council in order to resolve the theological disputes between the Papacy and the Lutheran reformers. However, the more dominant consideration was the possibility of the emperor using military force to wipe out the Lutherans. Fortunately, matters delayed military force due to several factours: military efforts were already opposing the Turks and the French; the Lutheran reformers had the political backing of John Frederick the Wise, who was a noble eminently competent in theology and political affairs; and the Lutheran cause held popularity among the German peoples.

Thus, scheduling a council was the only option for the Papacy. Two factours challenged the consensus on the meeting place and availability of the council, however: (1) Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) would not allow, at the reformers’ request, the council to be free, meaning open for anyone in the church to attend and, therefore, not left to biased papal interference; and (2) Luther’s health delayed the meeting time of the council even further. As Luther’s health began to fail, the reformers would find his death was not only untimely but also predicated the rise in controversy among Lutherans.

In anticipation of Luther’s death, both John Frederick and Luther predicted future misinterpretation of Luther’s written works from allies and foes alike. So, John Frederick had suggested to Luther that he write a “last will and testament” on his theological expositions. Luther’s theological last will and testament is called the Schmalkald Articles, divided into three main parts:

1. The confession of the Trinity against antiquated heresies.
2. The person and work of Christ as well as original sin, the bondage of the will, abuses of the Papacy, and biblical structure for Christian living in the home, church, and society.
3. The Holy Spirit and His gift of faith given through the proclamation of Baptism and the Eucharist as God’s “means” in coming to His children whom He dearly loves.

Having died on February 18, 1546, many theological disputes were left unsettled while new ones rose to take their place. Unfortunately, Luther’s writings and his last will and testament, in which his views are quite transparent, virtually did nothing to prevent discord among well-meaning Lutherans.

The emperor’s political moves did not help matters for the reformers either, and neither did his ignorance. Charles V “had no conception whatsoever of what Luther’s call for reform of the central teachings of the church really meant. He knew only that he could not abide such challenges as Luther’s to public authority. If the pope’s authority could be challenged and frustrated, so could that of the emperor” (Arand, 171). Thus, Charles V’s motivation was political, not theological. His concern was solely for his own authority position of power and not for the dignity and preservation of Christ’s church.

Eventually, Charlres V was finally able to gather the resources necessary to advance against the Lutherans—the Schmalkaldic League. (The Schmalkaldic League was a defensive alliance the Protestant territories formed to defend themselves against the Papacy. It held the “two swords theory,” which “divided authority and responsibility” between Church and State: “the church held the spiritual sword, overseeing religious and moral life while the state wielded the political sword, restraining the flesh in all of its forms” [Arand, 141]. The Papacy often ventured erroneously into secular and political affairs.)

However, lest one misconstrue the emperor’s true target, he was not warring against Lutheranism as a religion or an ideology per se. Instead, Charles V “singled out the two leading princes in the Protestant league of Smalcald, Elector John Frederick of Saxony and the Landgrave Philip of Hesse,” both of whom were ipso facto guilty of actual crimes. “Philip was guilty of bigamy,” which the emperor’s code of 1532 forbade, and “John Frederick had used illegal force against the clerical foundation at Würzen and the episcopal chapter in Naumburg to extend the influence of the Reformation in those areas adjacent to or within his domains” (Arand, 173). Both Frederick and Philip had violated imperial law, and as such, Charles V saw this as a golden opportunity to plausibly advance against the Schmalkaldic League. This was an astute political move on Charles’ part to damage the Lutheran movement. Still, however, Charles V sought other means to censor Lutheranism through his own reform.

In December 1548—just two years after Luther’s untimely death—the Leipzig Interim was held. It was at this interim that some Lutheran reformers, such as the esteemed Philip Melanchthon, settled on some unfortunate compromises with the Papacy. The interim include settled compromises on confirmation, penance, ordination, extreme unction, and various matters of adiaphora such as festivals and masses for the dead. It was at this interim, and the events that followed, where Luther’s death is realised as untimely and his absence as lamentable.

Although they never called each other such terms, this interim led to the opposing parties of the Gnesio-Lutherans and the Philippists. “[T]hose who remained faithful to Melanchthon [the Philippists] tagged their critics [the Gnesio-Lutherans] with the label ‘Flacians’ [because Flacius opposed the Leipzig Interim]. …Those who shared [Luther’s] view [the Gnesio-Lutherans] called their opponents [the Philippists] ‘adiaphorists'” (Arand, 184), since they compromised with the Papacy on making adiaphora into laws. This division set the pattern for all the controversies that would subsequently follow.

One large possible asset to perpetual discord among the reformers was that both parties revered Luther “as a special agent of God. All taught justification of the sinner in God’s sight by grace through faith in Christ” (Arand, 185). Because both sides strongly believed they held Luther’s original, genuine doctrinal beliefs, neither side was capable of wavering from their doctrinal positions, even if they were in error.

Ironically, then, Luther’s theological last will and testament did not achieve what it was set out to achieve—the final, transparent say on certain doctrinal matters. This was no fault of Luther’s but the fault of the theologians who unwittingly opposed Luther (mainly the Philippists/adiaphorists) while claiming to extrapolate their theology from him. As a result of the Leipzig Interim—no thanks to Charles V and his Schmakald War—many controversies arose among Lutherans that required Luther’s presence. Like the early church tried to make sense of Christian life and doctrine after the death of the Apostles, history began to repeat itself here toward the end of the Lutheran Reformation.

One such controversy to rise was the Majoristic controversy. Georg Major and his contemporary, Johannes Bugenhagen, advocated for the Leipzig Interim against Amsdodrf and his contemporaries, Flacius and Gallus. Major and Bugenhagen contended for good works as necessary for salvation whereas Amsdorf and company contended that, in agreement with Luther, good works are not necessary for salvation but are necessary for the neighbour.

Major did not help his position when he openly contradicted himself on several occasions, “insisting that he had always held that faith alone justifies,” while simultaneously claiming “good works [as] necessary for the retention of salvation” (Arand, 192). Faith alone cannot justify whether (a) good works justify or (b) good works “retain” salvation. In both cases, salvation depends on the human individual and not on Christ alone, thus deposing justification by faith altogether.

Another controversy was the Osiandrian controversy. Andreas Osiander was a Neo-Platonist (though he was ignorant of his Neo-Platonism) who taught that human beings receive Christ’s righteousness only in His divine nature over against the orthodox Lutheran view that human beings receive Christ’s righteousness by His perfect obedience, not by one or the other nature, which He reckons to us. In other words, Christ in both His natures reckons His righteousness to us by virtue of His perfect obedience to God the Father.

Osiander’s major error was that he “failed to grasp Luther’s biblical way of defining reality in terms of relationships, based on the creative Word of God that establishes this reality… He failed to understand that for Luther the basis of reality rested on creative speaking (Gen 1), on the Word of God” (Arand, 218-219). In other words, whereas Luther let the Word speak for itself, Osiander—among other erroneous heretics—sought to philosophise the Word with human reason.

The Majoristic and Osiandrian controversies are merely two of many that sprung up after Luther’s untimely death. The Lutheran Reformation was not aptly prepared for Luther’s death. At no fault of Luther’s, his untimely death set into motion militaristic opposition, the unfortunate compromises during the Leipzig Interim, and the unbecoming controversies that subsequently followed. Fortunately, theologians faithful to the Scriptures and loyal to Luther’s legacy resolved these disputes in the Formula of Concord, which we thankfully have retained in the Unaltered Book of Concord to this day.

Bibliography

Arand, Charles P. The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the Book of Concord. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.