13 Justification in Lutheranism, 1516 – 1580 ◈

It is at this point, however, that certain clear differences between Luther and Karlstadt become clearly discernible. In his works dating from this early period, Karlstadt appears as a remarkably faithful interpreter of Augustine, where Luther often appears as his critic. Thus Karlstadt follows Augustine in developing an antithesis between law and grace rather than gospel , and emphasises the priority of grace rather than faith . 2 Luther, in contrast, regarded the gospel and law as antithetical. 3 Most significantly of all, the Augustinian understanding of the nature of justification is faithfully reproduced. Of particular importance is Karlstadt’ s unequivocal assertion that justifying righteousness is inherent to humans, and that it makes them righteous. 4 In his writings for the period 1519– 21, Karlstadt faithfully reproduces the Augustinian concept of justification as the non-imputation of sin and the impartation of righteousness, and does not even hint at any extrinsic conception of justifying righteousness, such as that expressed by the ‘ alien righteousness of Christ’ . 5 At this stage, Karlstadt’ s manner of envisaging the justification of the sinner can be expressed well using Augustine’ s idea that justified sinner is partly righteous and partly sinful (ex quadam parte iustus, ex quadam parte peccator ). 6 There are therefore excellent reasons for suggesting that Karlstadt ’ s doctrine of justification over the period 1517– 21 is essentially Augustinian, lacking the novel elements which distinguish Luther’ s teaching of the time from that of the African bishop.

Yet at this stage Luther continued to place an emphasis upon the believer’ s actual participation in the divine life through union with Christ. Christ is present within the believer through faith, and his presence in some way gives rise to the righteousness of faith. Such ideas are found in Luther’ s important 1520 writing The Freedom of a Christian : 7

During the 1520s, Luther developed his theology of justification in two significant manners. First, he intensified the Pauline notion of ‘ justification by faith’ to ‘ justification by faith alone ’ . Aware that Paul did not actually use this phase, Luther supplied it in his 1522 German translation of the New Testament, which rendered Romans 3:28 as ‘ We hold, therefore, that someone becomes righteous (Gerecht werde ) without the work of the law, only through faith’ . 10 Luther’ s approach to biblical translation has been the subject of much study, and it is clear that one of Luther’ s core aims was to achieve theological clarity. 11 Although most comment on Luther’ s translation of Romans 3:28 has focussed on the legitimacy of his introduction of the word ‘ only’ , 12 it is arguable that his translation of Paul’ s term ‘ justified’ by the German phase ‘ gerecht werde (becomes righteous)’ rather than ‘ gerechtfertigt’ is at least as significant, particularly given the trends towards declaratory approaches to justification which achieved dominance within Lutheranism during the 1530s.

In his sermons, Luther tends to interpret the Pauline phrase ‘ works of the law’ to refer to a general trend to locate the basis of justification in human achievement – including, but not limited to, the religious observance of the Mosaic law. Luther seems to elide what he regards as a Jewish belief that we are justified by fulfilling the Mosaic law with a monk’ s belief that he could be justified by religious observance – perhaps with his own personal history in mind. Although Luther is clear of the historical context against which Paul’ s views on justification by faith – rather than by works of the law – is set, his natural theological inclination to make connections with the present-day situation at times leads him to decontextualise Paul’ s concept of ‘ works of the law’ and recontextualise it within the German civil and religious culture of the 1520s.

Yet this same principle is also evident in his presentation of the concept of justification. Luther does not use a single definition of justification, but tends to understand and express this in a number of different modalities, apparently with his expository and homiletic tasks in mind. We thus find relational, juridical and participatory approaches being used in justification, apparently without any sense of a need to correlate these approaches, or resolve any tensions or inconsistencies that might seem to arise between them. This inevitably raised some difficulties as the polemical concerns of a later generation made it appropriate to solidify – and hence to narrow – what Luther understood by justification.

Johann Bugenhagen , who came to play an important role in the Wittenberg evangelical faction, 13 similarly tended to frame his discussion of justification in terms of the non-imputation of sin , rather than the imputation of an extrinsic righteousness. In his 1525 lectures on Romans, Bugenhagen identifies the three elements of justification as remissio peccatorum , donatio spiritus and non-imputatio peccati . 14 Even when commenting on Romans 4:5– 6, where Erasmus had corrected the Vulgate translation reputatio iustitiae to imputatio iustitiae , Bugenhagen still interprets the text as referring to the non-imputation of sin rather than the imputation of an alien righteousness . 15 Where Bugenhagen speaks of imputatio in a specifically Christological context, he is referring to the fact that the sin of believers is not imputed to them on account of Christ: iusti non imputante deo propter Christum peccatum . More generally, however, his concept of the non-imputation of sin is discussed in a pneumatological context; the renewing work of the Holy Spirit within humans permits God not to impute their sin. Although Bugenhagen thus develops a doctrine of justification which is essentially Augustinian, omitting any reference to the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ, it is nevertheless clear that he is in the process of moving away from Augustine on certain points of significance. 16 For example, he follows Luther and Melanchthon in arguing that grace is to be conceived extrinsically, as favor Dei . 17

In view of Melanchthon’ s importance in establishing a forensic concept of justification as normative within Protestantism, it is appropriate to consider his contribution at this point. Although an Erasmian on his arrival at Wittenberg in 1518, Melanchthon appears to have adopted Luther’ s totus homo anthropology at an early stage, 18 regarding sin as permeating even the higher faculties of humans. While his baccalaureate theses of September 1519 appear to develop a theology of justification which parallels that of Luther rather than that of Karlstadt , 19 it is clear from his writings of the period 1519– 20 that he still tends to conceive justification ethically at points, as ‘ mortification of the flesh and our affections’ . 20

In his earlier works, Melanchthon portrays justification in predominantly transformational, rather than declarative, terms. Thus a conspicuous feature of these works is his emphasis upon the role of the person of Christ in justification; for example, the 1523 Annotationes in Evangelium Iohannis develops the idea that justification involves a personal union between Christ and the believer. 21 This contrasts significantly with his later emphasis upon the more abstract concept of the work of Christ associated with his doctrine of forensic justification, which becomes particularly evident from his writings dating from after 1530, particularly his 1532 commentary on Romans.

Nevertheless, by 1521 Melanchthon appears to have grasped much of Luther’ s emerging understanding of justification, and incorporated it into the first edition of the Loci communes of that year. 22 This is particularly clear in the Locus de gratia , in which grace is unequivocally defined extrinsically as favor Dei : ‘ for grace, if it is to be very precisely defined, is nothing other than the benevolence of God towards us’ . 23 Yet justification by faith is not treated as being of central importance; rather, it is presented as part of an interconnected set of ideas, conveniently arranged around three focal points of ‘ Sin, Law and Grace’ , paralleling those set out in Paul’ s letter to the Romans. 24

The Augsburg Confession (1530) provides a view of justification that merits close attention. Its fourth article sets out the emerging Lutheran understanding of how sinners are justified. I quote from the German translation of this article, which offers insights that are too easily overlooked through an exclusive reliance on the Latin text. 25

Whereas Luther had earlier consistently employed images and categories of personal relationship to describe the union of the believer and Christ (such as the commercium admirabile of a human marriage paralleling that between the soul and Christ), 26 Melanchthon increasingly borrowed images and categories from the sphere of Roman law. Thus Melanchthon illustrates the concept of forensic justification with reference to a classical analogy: just as the people of Rome declared Scipio to be a free person, so God declares the sinner to be righteous before God. 27

The Augsburg Confession (1530) contains a brief statement on justification in its fourth article. This does not actually refer to the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ at all, but instead merely restates the Pauline idea (Romans 4:5) of ‘ faith being reckoned as righteousness’ . 29 The use of the formula propter Christum per fidem is significant, in that it defines the correct understanding of the formula ‘ justification sola fide ’ . The sole ground for human justification lies not in humans themselves or in anything which they can do, but in Christ and his work alone. Humanity is not justified on account of faith (which would represent a doctrine of justification propter fidem ), nor must faith be seen as a human work or achievement; faith is about the human appropriation of the gracious deed of God in Christ.

In the Apologia (1530) for the Confession, Melanchthon develops the concept of imputation – hinted at, but not explicitly stated, in the above article – in a significant direction. Just as a person might pay the debt of a friend, even though it is not their own, so the believer may be reckoned as righteous on account of the alien merit of Christ. 30 Making Luther’ s critique of Augustine’ s concept of justifying righteousness explicit, Melanchthon states that justification is to be understood forensically, as the declaration that the believer is righteous on account of the alien righteousness of Christ. 31 Thus justification does not signify ‘ making righteous’ , but ‘ pronouncing righteous’ . 32 There is no righteousness within humans, or inherent to them, which can be regarded as the basis of their justification; humans are justified on the basis of an external and alien righteousness, which is ‘ reputed’ or ‘ imputed’ to them.

These statements of the imputation of righteousness go far beyond the traditional Augustinian formulations concerning justification as the non-imputation of sin , and contradict such statements which define justification as ‘ making righteous’ . Yet alongside statements which explicitly define the forensic character of justification, and which clearly exclude a factitive interpretation of justification, we find occasional statements which seem to define justification in more factitive terms. Significantly, such statements tend to be found near the beginning of the Apologia for the fourth article, whereas those denying the factitive character of justification tend to be found towards its end. 33

During the 1530s, Melanchthon emerged as both a leading synthesiser of key Lutheran ideas, as well as the driving force behind developing a distinct vision for Lutheran theological education and a defence of Lutheran theology against its Catholic opponents. 34 A major theme of Melanchthon’ s defence of the theological and ecclesial integrity of Lutheranism was that it represents a principled return to early Christian ideas, rejecting the distortions of medieval scholasticism. 35 Given Augustine’ s prominent, even determinative, status within the western theological tradition, it was important for Melanchthon to demonstrate that Lutheranism was essentially about the reappropriation of the vera theologia of Augustine. 36 After all, Luther himself had earlier suggested that the Wittenberg Reformation was essentially about ‘ the Bible and Augustine’ . Yet by the mid-1530s, Melanchthon was becoming increasingly open about a divergence between the Wittenberg theology and Augustine over the issue of justifying righteousness. 37 Augustine was a more reliable interpreter of Paul than the scholastics – but he still failed to do justice to the core of Paul’ s theological vision, which focussed on the doctrine of justification. 38

Among Melanchthon ’ s contemporary critics on this point was Andreas Osiander , leader of the evangelical faction in Nuremburg from 1522 to 1547. For Osiander, the emerging Melanchthonian concept of justification as ‘ declaring righteous’ was unacceptable: saving righteousness was none other than the essential indwelling righteousness of Christ, arising from his divinity rather than from his humanity. 39 Justification must therefore be understood to consist of the infusion of the essential righteousness of Christ. Osiander was severely critical of those who hold that we are ‘ regarded as righteous only on account of the forgiveness of sins, and not on account of the righteousness of Christ who dwells within us through faith’ . 40 We see here an unequivocal reassertion of a fundamentally Augustinian understanding of the nature of justification, especially in relation to the real interior transformation of an individual through the indwelling of God. 41 Although some of his critics, such as Martin Chemnitz, argued that this made justification dependent upon sanctification, it is clear that this is not actually the case. Osiander merely reacted against what he regarded as the unacceptably extrinsic conception of justification in the Apologia by emphasising those scriptural passages which speak of Christ dwelling within the believer.

Furthermore, Osiander claimed, not without reason, the support of Luther in his views on the significance of the indwelling of Christ; 42 the increasing emphasis within the German evangelical faction upon the work of Christ imputed to humanity inevitably led to a reduction in interest in Christ’ s transformative role within humans. (Indeed, the new ‘ Finnish school’ of Luther interpretation may be regarded as an indirect vindication of Osiander ’ s reading of Luther.) 43 However, Osiander’ s views merely served to harden German Protestant opinion against the concept of justification by inherent righteousness, and it was left to Calvin to demonstrate how Osiander’ s legitimate protest against the externalisation of Christ might be appropriated while maintaining a forensic doctrine of justification . 44 Yet within Lutheranism, there was some difficulty in providing a consensual articulation of the relation between the person of Christ on the one hand, and the work of Christ on the other, with some arguing for the separation of Christ’ s person and work by holding that the righteousness by which believers are justified is not that of the living Christ within the believer, but rather the merit of Christ, which is detached from his person.

The Formula of Concord (1577) was intended to put an end to such disputes within Lutheranism over the nature, grounds and outcomes of justification by faith. Originally written in German, this document achieved wide, though not universal, acceptance within Lutheran territories. This document, which was clearly designed to unify, or at least reduce tensions between, the diverse doctrinal factions within early Lutheranism, generally presents justification in strongly extrinsic terms. 45 Justification is described as being ‘ absolved’ , that is ‘ declared free of all sin and of the judgement of condemnation’ . 46 While God dwells within the believer, this indwelling is not to be seen as the basis or essence of the ‘ righteousness of faith’ , on the basis of which believers are pronounced righteous. 47