What do you think?
Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved
In this classic essay, Luther takes up the question of being a Christian and a Soldier. He gives soldiers (and others with vocations of violence) the comfort that their work is, in fact, a good work before God.
68 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 1526
About the author
Martin Luther
5,164 books860 followersMartin Luther (1483-1546) was a German monk, theologian, university professor and church reformer whose ideas inspired the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western civilization.
Luther's theology challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the only infallible source of religious authority and that all baptized Christians under Jesus are a spiritual priesthood. According to Luther, salvation was a free gift of God, received only by true repentance and faith in Jesus as the Messiah, a faith given by God and unmediated by the church.
Luther's confrontation with Charles V at the Diet of Worms over freedom of conscience in 1521 and his refusal to submit to the authority of the Emperor resulted in his being declared an outlaw of the state as he had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Because of the perceived unity of the medieval Church with the secular rulers of western Europe, the widespread acceptance of Luther's doctrines and popular vindication of his thinking on individual liberties were both phenomenal and unprecedented.
His translation of the Bible into the vernacular, making it more accessible to ordinary people, had a tremendous political impact on the church and on German culture. It furthered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation, and influenced the translation of the English King James Bible. His hymns inspired the development of congregational singing within Christianity. His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage within Protestantism.
Much scholarly debate has concentrated on Luther's writings about the Jews. His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis in 1933–45. As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.
Luther's theology challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the only infallible source of religious authority and that all baptized Christians under Jesus are a spiritual priesthood. According to Luther, salvation was a free gift of God, received only by true repentance and faith in Jesus as the Messiah, a faith given by God and unmediated by the church.
Luther's confrontation with Charles V at the Diet of Worms over freedom of conscience in 1521 and his refusal to submit to the authority of the Emperor resulted in his being declared an outlaw of the state as he had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Because of the perceived unity of the medieval Church with the secular rulers of western Europe, the widespread acceptance of Luther's doctrines and popular vindication of his thinking on individual liberties were both phenomenal and unprecedented.
His translation of the Bible into the vernacular, making it more accessible to ordinary people, had a tremendous political impact on the church and on German culture. It furthered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation, and influenced the translation of the English King James Bible. His hymns inspired the development of congregational singing within Christianity. His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage within Protestantism.
Much scholarly debate has concentrated on Luther's writings about the Jews. His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis in 1933–45. As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 27, 2020
Public Domain PDF Version Here: https://wolfmueller.co/downloads/
To be honest, I was very skeptical while reading this book. After reading Tolstoy and his defense of pacifism, I wasn't wanting Luther to be right. And at first it seemed like that. Some of his divisions (such as not supporting the overthrow of a tyrannical ruler, but supporting "just" war) seemed to grate against Christ's simple "do not resist evil with evil." As the scriptural references started piling up, it became obvious that Christians at the very least cannot completely cut themselves off from government (tax dodgers, non-voters, etc.). Three things near the end of the book changed my mind and added a couple of extra stars to my rating:
1) The shared belief that Tolstoy also holds to:
"Right, that is, that which pleases God, should be above wealth, body, honor and friends, grace, and enjoyment, and in this case there is no respecting of persons, but only of God."
and
"it is better that God call you faithful and honorable than that the world call you faithful and honorable"
2) The exception to conscientiously object if you believe your nation's war is unjust:
"A second question: 'Suppose my lord were wrong in going to war.' I reply: 'If you know for sure that he is wrong, then you should fear God rather than men (Acts 4:1), and not fight or serve, for you cannot have a good conscience before God.'"
3) The prayers he has for soldiers going into battle. This part actually choked me up a bit. You can tell that Luther is by no means a warmonger. He does not delight in empires, colonies, expansion, worldly gain, or the like. He seems very honest and sober, especially near the end. You can tell he spent a while working on those prayers, since they're as great as Luther's other main prayers. He, as the last great medieval theologian, categorically denies any talismans or superstitions (Some can conjure iron and bullets; some can bless horse and rider; some carry St. John’s Gospel, or some other object on which they rely. All these are in perilous state, for they do not believe in God, but rather sin through unbelief and false belief in God, and if they were to die, they must needs be lost.), enjoins Christian men to humbly approach their task, and tells them to leave the rest to God. The last few pages added all the nuance I feared was lacking in the first 60 or so. His words concerning entering battle also work well for anyone nearing death.
"When the battle begins and the exhortation, of which I spoke above, has been given, they should commend themselves simply to God’s grace and adopt a Christian attitude."
and
"If then you want to say the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, you may do so, and let that be enough. Thus commit body and soul to His hands, and draw sword, and smite in God’s name."
To be honest, I was very skeptical while reading this book. After reading Tolstoy and his defense of pacifism, I wasn't wanting Luther to be right. And at first it seemed like that. Some of his divisions (such as not supporting the overthrow of a tyrannical ruler, but supporting "just" war) seemed to grate against Christ's simple "do not resist evil with evil." As the scriptural references started piling up, it became obvious that Christians at the very least cannot completely cut themselves off from government (tax dodgers, non-voters, etc.). Three things near the end of the book changed my mind and added a couple of extra stars to my rating:
1) The shared belief that Tolstoy also holds to:
"Right, that is, that which pleases God, should be above wealth, body, honor and friends, grace, and enjoyment, and in this case there is no respecting of persons, but only of God."
and
"it is better that God call you faithful and honorable than that the world call you faithful and honorable"
2) The exception to conscientiously object if you believe your nation's war is unjust:
"A second question: 'Suppose my lord were wrong in going to war.' I reply: 'If you know for sure that he is wrong, then you should fear God rather than men (Acts 4:1), and not fight or serve, for you cannot have a good conscience before God.'"
3) The prayers he has for soldiers going into battle. This part actually choked me up a bit. You can tell that Luther is by no means a warmonger. He does not delight in empires, colonies, expansion, worldly gain, or the like. He seems very honest and sober, especially near the end. You can tell he spent a while working on those prayers, since they're as great as Luther's other main prayers. He, as the last great medieval theologian, categorically denies any talismans or superstitions (Some can conjure iron and bullets; some can bless horse and rider; some carry St. John’s Gospel, or some other object on which they rely. All these are in perilous state, for they do not believe in God, but rather sin through unbelief and false belief in God, and if they were to die, they must needs be lost.), enjoins Christian men to humbly approach their task, and tells them to leave the rest to God. The last few pages added all the nuance I feared was lacking in the first 60 or so. His words concerning entering battle also work well for anyone nearing death.
"When the battle begins and the exhortation, of which I spoke above, has been given, they should commend themselves simply to God’s grace and adopt a Christian attitude."
and
"If then you want to say the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, you may do so, and let that be enough. Thus commit body and soul to His hands, and draw sword, and smite in God’s name."
September 20, 2026
A great read for any first responder or military personnel. It is an excellent resource against the pacifist theology, but more importantly a great witness to Gods teachings on temporal government. A great work to calibrate the Christians mindset in all of life’s moral challenges. For we fight the old Adam daily.
March 10, 2022
I had some mixed feelings when reading this. On the one hand he tries to ensure all wars abide by just war ideas. On the other there are a number of assumptions he makes that I don't think are justified.
For instance he says:
“ when I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating so much misery, it seems an unChristian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think of how it protects the good and keeps and preserves wife and child, house and farm, property, and honor and peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is; and I observe that it amputates a leg or a hand, so that the whole body may not perish.” (A man can survive without organs, his organs won’t go to hell form being removed, this is the problem with his analogy).
“First, war may be made by three kinds of people. An equal may make war against his equal, that is, neither of the two persons is the vassal or subject of the other even though one may be less great or glorious or mighty than the other. Or an overlord may fight against his subject. Or a subject may fight against his overlord. “ (so it seems Luther would consider some revolutions against Government legitimate in theory but says he can’t think of legitimate examples)
“Nevertheless, it is my opinion that madmen and tyrants are not the same. A madman can neither do nor tolerate anything reasonable, and there is no hope for him because the light of reason has gone out. A tyrant, however, may do things that are far worse than the insane man does, but he still knows that he is doing wrong” to which I would ask which is worse, known what you are doing and doing wrong is worse. He is a bit optimistic in saying a tyrant can be made to see reason as he still has a conscience, what if a tyrant truly is insane?
“If it is considered right to murder or depose tyrants, the practice spreads and it becomes a commonplace thing arbitrarily to call men tyrants who are not tyrants, and even to kill them if the mob takes a notion to do so. The history of the Roman people shows us how this can happen.” That is a good point.
“We dare not encourage the mob very much. It goes mad too quickly.... The mob neither has any moderation nor even knows what moderation is. And every person in it has more than five tyrants hiding in him.” This is also true and so it is important to avoid mob mentality.
He seems to argue you shouldn’t overthrow your own ruler but you can conquer other nations as punishment for them having a bad ruler. What is the logic in that?
“if you see that the rulers think so little of their souls salvation that they rage and do wrong, what does it matter to you if they ruin your property, body, wife, and child? They cannot hurt your soul, and they do themselves more harm than they do you because they damn their own souls and that must result in the ruin of body and property.” They could damage other’s souls in the process, if they deny the right to worship for instance?
"a wicked tyrant is more tolerable than a bad war, as you must admit from your own reason and experience.” This assumes they are mutually exclusive. Many unjust wars are instituted by tyrants. By resisiting the people may prevent more death on other nations
“No war is just, even if it is a war between equals, unless one has such a good reason for fighting and such a good conscience that he can say, ‘My neighbor compels and forces me to fight, though I would rather avoid it.’” I would agree his conclusion on that, that it is an act of self defense.
He says a soldier should not be a soldier for the pay. “Such a greedy man spoils all other good works, too. For example, a man who preaches for the sake of temporal wealth is lost, though Christ says that a preacher shall live from the gospel.” The question then is, what if they aren’t being paid just wages?
In conclusion, he does a good job of trying to avoid angry mobs attack their rulers. As well say trying to say that a war should have proper justification, even saying if your master tells you to go to unjust war, to go with your conscience. But he seems a bit inconstant and contradictory on this point. When he gives the analogy about amputating a bad part, it runs counter to his other points. He opposes Revolution yet supports in many cases wars against consctipted soldiers, yet for his analogy to work, Revolution is a far more efficiant way to cut out the bad.
For instance he says:
“ when I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating so much misery, it seems an unChristian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think of how it protects the good and keeps and preserves wife and child, house and farm, property, and honor and peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is; and I observe that it amputates a leg or a hand, so that the whole body may not perish.” (A man can survive without organs, his organs won’t go to hell form being removed, this is the problem with his analogy).
“First, war may be made by three kinds of people. An equal may make war against his equal, that is, neither of the two persons is the vassal or subject of the other even though one may be less great or glorious or mighty than the other. Or an overlord may fight against his subject. Or a subject may fight against his overlord. “ (so it seems Luther would consider some revolutions against Government legitimate in theory but says he can’t think of legitimate examples)
“Nevertheless, it is my opinion that madmen and tyrants are not the same. A madman can neither do nor tolerate anything reasonable, and there is no hope for him because the light of reason has gone out. A tyrant, however, may do things that are far worse than the insane man does, but he still knows that he is doing wrong” to which I would ask which is worse, known what you are doing and doing wrong is worse. He is a bit optimistic in saying a tyrant can be made to see reason as he still has a conscience, what if a tyrant truly is insane?
“If it is considered right to murder or depose tyrants, the practice spreads and it becomes a commonplace thing arbitrarily to call men tyrants who are not tyrants, and even to kill them if the mob takes a notion to do so. The history of the Roman people shows us how this can happen.” That is a good point.
“We dare not encourage the mob very much. It goes mad too quickly.... The mob neither has any moderation nor even knows what moderation is. And every person in it has more than five tyrants hiding in him.” This is also true and so it is important to avoid mob mentality.
He seems to argue you shouldn’t overthrow your own ruler but you can conquer other nations as punishment for them having a bad ruler. What is the logic in that?
“if you see that the rulers think so little of their souls salvation that they rage and do wrong, what does it matter to you if they ruin your property, body, wife, and child? They cannot hurt your soul, and they do themselves more harm than they do you because they damn their own souls and that must result in the ruin of body and property.” They could damage other’s souls in the process, if they deny the right to worship for instance?
"a wicked tyrant is more tolerable than a bad war, as you must admit from your own reason and experience.” This assumes they are mutually exclusive. Many unjust wars are instituted by tyrants. By resisiting the people may prevent more death on other nations
“No war is just, even if it is a war between equals, unless one has such a good reason for fighting and such a good conscience that he can say, ‘My neighbor compels and forces me to fight, though I would rather avoid it.’” I would agree his conclusion on that, that it is an act of self defense.
He says a soldier should not be a soldier for the pay. “Such a greedy man spoils all other good works, too. For example, a man who preaches for the sake of temporal wealth is lost, though Christ says that a preacher shall live from the gospel.” The question then is, what if they aren’t being paid just wages?
In conclusion, he does a good job of trying to avoid angry mobs attack their rulers. As well say trying to say that a war should have proper justification, even saying if your master tells you to go to unjust war, to go with your conscience. But he seems a bit inconstant and contradictory on this point. When he gives the analogy about amputating a bad part, it runs counter to his other points. He opposes Revolution yet supports in many cases wars against consctipted soldiers, yet for his analogy to work, Revolution is a far more efficiant way to cut out the bad.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews