Therefore the sum of this article is, that the word Lord signifies, in its most simple meaning, as much as Redeemer, that is, the one who has brought us from Satan to God—from death to life—from sin to righteousness, and thus preserves us. The parts, however, which succeed each other in this article, chiefly serve to illustrate and explain this redemption—how and through what means it came to pass; that is, how dear and precious a price it cost Christ, what he bestowed upon it, what he hazarded to gain us and to bring us into his kingdom; namely, he became man, was begotten by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, free from all sins, in order that he might be the lord of sin; moreover, he suffered, died, and was buried, that he might make expiation for me, and make compensation for my transgressions, not with gold or silver, but with his own precious blood. And all this he did, that he might be my Lord; he performed nothing for himself, nor had he need of any thing. Afterwards he arose from the dead, and overcame death; and finally, he ascended to heaven, and received dominion at the right hand of the Father, that the devil and all powers might be subject to him, and lie beneath his feet until he, ultimately on the last day, shall separate and remove us from this wicked world, from Satan, death, and sin.

But to treat each of these particulars separately, does not comport with a brief lecture for children; it rather belongs to the more lengthy sermons throughout the year, especially at the times set apart for the purpose of treating each article at proper length, concerning the nativity, passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Moreover, the entire Gospel which we preach, depends also on this, that we properly embrace this article, since our whole redemption and salvation are based upon it, and since it is so abundant and copious, that we always have enough to learn in it. (Page 494-495).

In his small work on the last words of David,* Dr. Luther, a little before his death, wrote thus: “According to the other, the temporal, human birth, the eternal power of God was also given unto him, but in time, and not from eternity. For the humanity of Christ has not been from eternity, like the divinity, but, according to our computation, Jesus the Son of Mary is now 1543 years of age. But from that moment, in which the divinity and humanity were united in one person, the man, the Son of Mary, truly is, and is called the omnipotent, eternal God; who has eternal power, who created and preserves all things, per communicationem idiomatum, because with the divinity, he is one person, and is also true God. Concerning this, he says: ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father,’ Matt. 11:27. And in another place: ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth,’ Matt. 28:18. Who is he that says: ‘Unto me?’ Unto me, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary, and born as man. From eternity I have this power of the Father, before I became man. But when I became man, I received it in time according to the humanity, and held it concealed until my resurrection and ascension, when it was to be manifested and declared;—as Paul, Rom. 1:4, writes: ‘He was declared to be the Son of God with power;’” John uses the term glorified, John 17:10. (Henkel Translation, p. 702).

But we beg every Christian reader to consider for God’s sake: If we can be justified before God and become Christians through such works, I would like to hear, (and we pray all of you to make every effort to reply,) what the difference would be between the doctrines of the philosophers and of Christ; if we can obtain the remission of sins through such works of ours, what benefit, then, is Christ to us? If we can become holy and pious in the sight of God, by natural reason and our own good works, what need have we then of the blood and death of Christ, or to be born anew through him? as Peter says in his first Epistle 1:3. This dangerous error (taught publicly in the schools and from the pulpit) has, alas, led even eminent theologians at Lyons, Paris, and other places, to recognise no Christian piety or righteousness, but that taught in philosophy; although every letter and syllable of Paul teaches differently; yet, while this ought reasonably to surprise us, and we could justly deride their views, they laugh at us, yea, ridicule Paul himself.

So greatly has this shameful, abominable error prevailed! I myself heard a reputable minister, who did not mention Christ and the Gospel, but preached the ethics of Aristotle, (Aristotelis ethicos). Is not such preaching puerile and foolish among Christians? If, however, the doctrine of our adversaries be true, then are these ethics (ethici,) an invaluable collection of sermons, and a fine new bible. For it is not easy for any one to write better than Aristotle, with regard to an external, honorable life.

We see, that some learned men have written books, in which they endeavour to show, that the words of Christ and the sayings of Socrates and Zeno harmonize beautifully, as if Christ had come to give us good laws and commandments, through which to merit the remission of our sins; instead of proclaiming to us the grace and peace of God and imparting the Holy Spirit, through his own merits and blood.

Hence, if we receive the doctrine of our adversaries, that we can merit the forgiveness of our sins, by the powers of natural reason and our own works, we are Aristotelians and not Christians, and there is no difference between an honorable Heathen, a Pharisaic, and a Christian life, between philosophy and the Gospel. (Henkel Translation, p. 158-159).