Politics

---

Colin Bernreuter
Christianity and The Law
Dr. Montgomery
Martin Luther and John Calvin on The Law
When it comes to Protestant Reformers, Luther and Calvin are at the forefront. Beginning with the split from the Roman Catholic Church, Luther has provided his followers revitalized interpretation of Scripture that emphasizes Scripture, grace, and faith. Calvin on the other hand argues that the knowledge of God is not inherent in humanity nor can it be discovered by observing this world. The only way to obtain it is to study Scripture. Throughout this paper, I will attempt to show the similarities and differences of the respective Reformers, as well as to reiterate what each is defending in their respective Theologies.
Luther
It is common in Lutheran circles to hear the statement: Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone. This is the central idea throughout Luther’s works. How can it be grace alone, as well as Scripture alone? Does Luther put a larger emphasis on one and not the other? Is the Old Testament, and more specifically The Law overruled and disregarded by Luther? We shall see. But first, we need to deal with another kind of Law, the Natural Law.
The Natural Law can be defined as the objective and universal moral code, the fundamental precepts of which are embedded in human nature, and which are discernible by the natural reason common to humanity.1 In recent years, Natural Law has fallen out of favor among Lutherans due to a fear that because it is championed by atheist philosophers as well as Christian, then it is un-Christian. There is also the fear that if we take the Natural Law theory seriously, it places too much emphasis on human reason and diminishes the need for divine revelation in Scripture. In his work, How Christians Should Regard Moses, Luther states: "Where [Moses] gives the commandments, we are not to follow him except so far as he agrees with the natural law."2 This is a very bold claim; some would even say heretical, but we will see that what Luther is saying is closer to the truth of the Gospel than the watered down version that we have unfortunately become accustomed to in an increasingly secular world.
We know from St. Paul that divine intervention on our behalf is the only relief from sin. (Rom 3:23) For the Jews, this seems relatively straightforward since they know they fall short of the Ten Commandments on a daily basis. How does this relate to Gentiles? Paul also states that they too are “without excuse” because their very deeds "show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness.”(Rom. 2:15) Drawing on inspiration from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Luther states that “the law was not unknown to them, but that they had a knowledge of what was good and evil.”3 It is also easy to see why Luther downplays Mosaic Law to such an extent. If Mosaic Law was the only method by which we knew the Law, then the billions of men who lived before Moses, as well as the trillions who have and will live after Moses would have no inclination that murder, theft, adultery, and coveting were objective moral evils. Luther does have a small soft spot in his heart for Mosaic Law however. While Moses was the first to receive a written-in-stone set of laws, there is a Law that predates him as well as Abraham. You have to go back to the moment of Creation. When God first created the physical laws of the world, He instituted the deep moral laws as well. Adam and Eve were the first bearers of this Law, not Abraham nor Moses. What Moses received on Mt. Sinai is by no means contrary to the Law written on the hearts of Adam and Eve. It is a physical manifestation of the Law, in complete accordance with it. This being so, Luther reiterates the idea that we are all in possession of rational faculties able to understand the Mosaic Law, because we also have the faculties to innately understand the Natural Law.
We know however that our faculties and our understanding have both been tarnished by the fall into sin, leading us to run from the Law and suppress it. (Rom 1:18-21) It is like people trying to close their eyes or plug their ears to avoid hearing some condemning word about them. Have you ever tried it? We both know even this is impossible. When you close your eyes or plug your ears, there is still a voice, your conscience…"the dim spark of the knowledge that there is a God, as also of the doctrine of the law.”4 This is why God decided to bring the Law into physical form, as a literal, physical, and tangible thing for us to reckon with, both as those tablets given to Moses and the written word of Scripture. A reasonable objection to this would be “why not start with the written Law, why place an emphasis on a Law that is muddied and corrupted by the human heart?” This is fairly easily answered just by looking around our world. Our neighbors and friends are increasingly becoming ignorant if not blatantly hostile to the authority of Scripture. There is hope for the Christian in this secular world however. Whenever we preach Grace, faith, and Scripture, we are also implicitly preaching to the truth of the Natural Law.
So what does Luther say about using both the Natural and Biblical Law in the public square? While not explicitly stating it, I suspect Luther would agree that in the pluralistic society we are living in special revelation and divine law would not get you very far in the beginning. While God’s direct instruction such as the Decalogue and the Sermon on The Mount is a far more specific in terms of moral clarity, the practicality of starting with the Natural Law as an apologetic tool is evident.
Now we come to our own involvement with God’s Law. Not the Natural Law, but God’s special revelation given to us through Holy Scripture. The Law convicts of our faults, but gives no way for redemption. In Galatians, Paul tells us that the way in which we receive remission for our sins comes from “The man who is named Jesus Christ and the Son of God gave himself for our sins." These are the condemning words for all ideas of merit as a means of redemption. If sins could be removed by our own merit, then what is the point of Christ? Where is the power of the Cross? As Luther says: “Since Christ was given for our sins it stands to reason that they cannot be put away by our own efforts.”5 Faith is the foundation of salvation. The papacy that Luther fought against got caught up in teaching that faith is the foundation of salvation but only with the accompanying good works. Their Gospel is a conditional gospel. In his commentary of Galatians, Luther states:
“human reason can think only in terms of the Law. It mumbles:
"This I have done, this I have not done." But faith looks to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, given into death for the sins of the whole world. To turn one's eyes away from Jesus means to turn them to the Law.”6

Luther also emphasizes the magnitude of sin in which humanity has gotten itself into. The whole world by its combined good works and efforts could not wipe the smallest sin away. The power of sin is so great that the only means by which to cure it was a sacrifice of the Son of God. Perhaps Luther’s most adamant statement regarding the power of the Law comes near the end of his commentary on the second chapter of Galatians. He says:
“Some will object that the Law is divine and holy. Let it be divine and holy. The Law has no right to tell me that I must be justified by it. The Law has the right to tell me that I should love God and my neighbor, that I should live in chastity, temperance, patience, etc. The Law has no right to tell me how I may be delivered from sin, death, and hell. It is the Gospel's business to tell me that. I must listen to the Gospel. It tells me, not what I must do, but what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has done for me.”7

Fortunately, for those who believe in Jesus Christ then sin has no power over them.
Calvin
John Calvin, a contemporary of Luther’s residing in France, was also an Augustinian monk that pushed for reforms in theology throughout Europe.
It is important to note that while Reformers like Luther and Calvin emphasized grace, they did not eliminate the need for law. Calvin even wrote a book dealing with the threefold uses of the Law in the Christian life. The first use of the law is as a mirror. There are two ways in which this part can be explained. It is a mirror because it reflects the perfect righteousness of God, thereby showing us, partly, the nature of God. It is also shows human sin. It shows us our weaknesses in order to drive us towards Christ and His grace. The second purpose of the law is a restraint on evil. The law acts to protect the righteous from unjust acts. Calvin states that its’ power is “by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice.”8 The third use of the law is to reveal to us what is pleasing to God. As children of God we are to delight in God’s law as the Psalmist does. According to Calvin, this is the highest and noblest of the uses. We are to be instruments by which the glory of God can be seen.
Lutherans also acknowledge Calvin’s threefold use of the Law, but not in the same order of importance per se. For most Lutheran’s, the pedagogical or first use of the law is the primary one, where as I stated earlier, Calvinist’s stand on the didactic or third use. The main difference between the two comes from a works-righteousness approach. Because Calvinist’s stand on the third use, it emphasizes the redeemed to do good works. This led Lutheran theologians to become wary of works-righteousness, rather than focusing on the Cross of Christ.
In regards to the uses of the Law in society, Calvin was extremely influenced by Aquinas. Aquinas believed, like Luther, that the revealed Law of Scripture and the Decalogue transcends the Mosaic Law. Calvin take Aquinas’ ideas and goes even further. He is even more reluctant to apply ancient theocratic laws of the Israelites shown in Scripture to the modern society in which we live. He uses usury as an example in the preface of Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses. It says:
“It is abundantly clear that the ancient people were prohibited from usury, but we must need confess that this was a part of their political constitution.  Hence it follows that usury is not now unlawful, except in so far as it contravenes equity and brotherly union.”9

Calvin also says in his Institutes:

“Surely every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself. Yet these must be in conformity to that perpetual rule of love, so that they indeed vary in form but have the same purpose. For I do not think that those barbarous and savage laws such as gave honor to thieves, permitted promiscuous intercourse, and others both more filthy and more absurd, are to be regarded as laws.”10
Calvin, like Luther, also believes that the moral law “is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.” 11 He also explains in detail the arguments men raised against him regarding the differing interpretation of the law and the punishments for breaking it. He says:
“Together with one voice, they pronounce punishment against those crimes which God's eternal law has condemned, namely, murder, theft, adultery, and false witness. But they do not agree on the manner of punishment. Nor is this either necessary or expedient. There are countries which, unless they deal cruelly with murderers by way of horrible examples, must immediately perish from slaughters and robberies. There are ages that demand increasingly harsh penalties…In time of war, in the clatter of arms, all humaneness would disappear unless some uncommon fear of punishment were introduced. In drought, in pestilence, unless greater severity is used, everything will go to ruin. How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity, which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God's law?”12
In the case of civil law, Calvin also addresses the problem of whether or not it is morally good to engage in lawsuits and other court dealings. This looks the “bad law is no law at all” that we have talked about in class. Nations are not bound to the ceremonial and therefore the judicial laws of the ancient Israelites, but they are still responsible to uphold the moral aspect of the Law. If the laws that the nation draws up and enforces are immoral in nature, then it is safe to say that they are not meant to be followed. The same goes for the individual Christian. At what point does the Christian resist the laws that the magistrate set up? For Calvin it depends on motive, whether or not it is moral to seek litigation against the magistrate or to seek their aid. “He should be far from all passion to harm or take revenge, far from harshness and hatred, far from burning desire for contention. He should rather be prepared to yield his own and suffer anything than be carried away with enmity toward his adversary.”13 The basis for Calvin’s views on litigation comes from the Apostle Paul and his ideas of the “litigious spirit”. It is a common argument against litigation that Paul rejected all forms of litigation. This is not true. As seen in 1 Corinthians 6:5-8, Paul fights against the spirit of litigation. He asks the Corinthians why they are constantly going to court, constantly arguing over possessions and the like. He is angry at the fact that they litigate and quarrel in the same way as the unbelievers, putting the Gospel and Christ to shame. In Calvin’s own words:
“Paul first criticized them for disgracing the gospel among believers by the in-temperateness of their quarrels. Secondly, he rebuked them also for contending in this way among themselves, brethren with brethren. For they were so far from bearing wrongs that they greedily panted after one another's possessions, and without cause assailed and inflicted loss upon one another. Therefore, Paul inveighs against that mad lust to go to law, not simply against all controversies.”14
Conclusion
We can see the similarities between Luther and Calvin’s theologies regarding the Law because they both grew out of, and accelerated, the Protestant Reformation in Europe. They both rely on Scripture as their source of revealed law, but also place a large amount of weight on the power of natural law. The differences come when we delve deeper into their uses of the law. Luther emphasizes the power of the Law as a mirror, showing us our sin and our need for Christ. Calvin places emphasis on the redemptive purpose of the Law, the idea that fulfilling the Law through our works shows us God’s redemptive nature. Remembering the effect of sin on our ability to do good works, the power of Calvin’s argument just doesn’t hold up. Luther gives a much more powerful argument that takes into account our inability to do good works and standing convicted by the Law, despite our strongest attempts to do otherwise. As Paul says in Romans 7:15-20:
“I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.”
In his final words, Luther expressed his true feelings towards his relationship with God and His redemptive power. “We are beggars, this is true.”









1 Himma, Kenneth. "Natural Law." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. January 1, 1995. Accessed October 28, 2014.
2  Martin Luther, "How Christians Should Regard Moses," trans. and ed. by E. Theodore Bachmann, Luther's Works: Word and Sacrament I, vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 161-174
3 Maas, Korey. "Natural Law, Lutheranism, and the Public Good." Modern Reformation. March 1, 2011. Accessed October 28, 2014.

4 Maas, Korey. "Natural Law, Lutheranism, and the Public Good." Modern Reformation. March 1, 2011. Accessed October 28, 2014.

5 Graebner, Theodore. Luther's Commentary on Galatians. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1949. 18-29.
6 Graebner, Theodore. Luther's Commentary on Galatians. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1949. 48-60.
7 Graebner, Theodore. Luther's Commentary on Galatians. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1949. 48-60.
8 Calvin, Institutes, bk. II, 1:307.
9 John Calvin, Preface, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, 132
10 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia, 1960), IV, pp. 1502-1509
11 "Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers," Journal of Religion 26 (1946), 179-182; John Calvin on God and Political Duty, Introduction, p. 15.
12 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia, 1960), IV, pp. 1502-1509
13 The Writings of John Calvin — an Introductory Guide By W. de Greef, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994
14 Calvin: an Introduction to His Thought By T.H.L. Parker, Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1995
---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE AS A MEMBER OR VISITOR