Luther's Righteousness: quite alien

As is well known in Lutheran theology, there are two distinct types of righteousness:  [i] alien righteousness (cool name!), and [ii] proper righteousness (Luther Two Kinds of Righteousness).  In his Commentary on Galatians, Luther regards the distinction as one between passive righteousness and active righteousness (which map on to [i] and [ii], respectively).

We can define alien righteousness as the righteousness of Christ which is imputed into us and acquired by means of faith alone--it is not earned by the human individual.  And we can define proper righteousness as our righteousness which is in response to Christ's righteousness in us, and it is this latter righteousness which produces (good) works.  Proper righteousness is the "product" or "fruit and consequence" of alien righteousness.  Even more, Luther describes alien righteousness as "heavenly" and concerns the new man, whereas proper righteousness is "earthly" and concerns the old man.

Luther considers alien/passive righteousness as superior to proper/active righteousness, where the former is wholly due to Christ by which we are brought into salvation.  Proper righteousness, although inferior, is nevertheless necessary for the whole of the Christian life.

A few concerns regarding Luther's framework.  First of all, when Christ's righteousness is imputed into the human individual, is the individual actually made righteous or is it entirely external?  That is, is there an internal change in the believer, or is there no such change?*

Consider the following.  Suppose I take a test, and I fail due to my ignorance.  Now suppose person S takes the test and obtains an A grade.  When the teacher is about to look at the score, S substitutes his grade for mine; furthermore, the teacher looks at my test and instead of looking at my answers, only looks at the substituted A-grade and therefore permits me to pass the class.

Although I received an A and passed the course, this grade is entirely external of me, for nothing has changed within me due to this exchange of grades.  In fact, I could have been entirely unaware that S substituted the grades, and happily I look at my report card at some later time to find out about passing the course.

Is Christ's imputation of his righteousness akin to S's substitution of grades?

If it is, then I find it hard to see how this fits in with the notion of new creation and spiritual transformation (cf. 1 Corinthians, Romans 6, Romans 12, 2 Peter).  That is, the primary conception of justification as merely a change in legal status (the F-to-A-grade-model such that the change is purely external) seems problematic from a Biblical framework (even some Protestants would agree, cf. N.T. Wright, Dallas Willard).  This is not to say there is no such change in legal status, but that salvation depicted in the Scriptures includes more than that.

On the other hand, if we are actually made righteous in the sense that there is a genuine internal change, then such an account is consonant with RC's conception of justification (more on this some other time).  Moreover, RC agrees with Luther insofar as both alien and proper righteousness are necessary elements in the Christian life, which includes an element of passivity with respect to righteousness.  For the Catholic agrees that Christ's life and activity is a sufficient cause of our initial justification, which is co-extensive with Luther's imputation of alien righteousness.  One cannot be saved by their own wits and devices (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas' claim that we cannot move towards God by our own accord).

For RC, the infusion of righteousness is not merely extrinsic to the subject but involves a genuine, internal change.  One key difference however is that RC would disregard the artificial distinction between alien righteousness and proper righteousness, where both are not to be treated as completely separate as Luther conceived but are both states or effects of the same thing, viz. the Holy Spirit's activity by which Christ's very life is brought about in the Christian.

To take this to the example given above, the activity of person S in our life is not merely to provide for us a passing grade but to remove our ignorance--S doesn't just give me the answers but helps me become the person who can proffer the right answers.  The Spirit's activity does not merely give us a "get-into-heaven-for-free" pass but involves His transforming work of the entire human personality such that we become "partakers in the divine nature" (2 Peter), thereby becoming new creatures--"for by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14).  So S does not merely give us his A-grade but aids and enables us to become the kind of person who can merit the A grade.  Jesus is not merely here to get us into heaven but is making us into His very image--we are becoming little Christs (as Peter Kreeft likes to say).  Thus, the divine allowance of our entrance into His family is not just an external change but includes a transformation of internal reality.  And such transformation is not by our doing but is a matter of what God is doing in us.

Thus, either Luther is saying nothing contradictory to the Catholic (though RC would add to it), or he does have a conception in tension with RC, but one that puts a strain on the notion of spiritual formation and new creation as conveyed in the Scriptures.


*(given my earlier complaint between Luther's use of 'internal', I should explain what I mean by my use here.  By 'internal' change, I mean that at one time an agent R lacks a certain property P and gains P at some later time (or R has a certain property P* at one time and loses it at another time), where P's being instantiated by R can be considered irrespective of R's relation to other concrete particulars--though the fact that R has P may be the result of some other entity O such that R could not instantiate P unless O were to cause or make it so.  By 'external', I mean a change in R that cannot be considered independent of R's relation to other concrete objects.  So an internal change would include my losing an arm (so by 'internal', I just don't mean things concerning the "soul", whatever that is), feeling melancholy to feeling elated (even if the cause of such a change is some other object such as the comedian Tim Hawkins), etc.  An external change would include the change of distance from where I am located and where President Obama is located as he is flying on Air Force One, becoming a widow(er), etc.)

Working Out Works

A caricature of Luther's view would be to deny any role whatsoever to works.  However, Luther does not exclude all works; in fact, he thinks that works are necessary given our current situation of being bodily--but works are not necessary for (nor has any part of) our justification.  Though not necessary, Luther claims that works indeed flow naturally and spontaneously from a life of faith; that is, the life of works is a response to the grace received by faith.

So one should not think that given Luther's faith-alone slogan, there is no room for works.  Certainly there is no place for works when it comes to justification (for Luther), but works are intimately tied to faith:

  "Our faith in Christ does not free us from works but from false opinions concerning works, that is, from the foolish presumption that justification is acquired by works... righteousness does not consist in works, although works neither can nor ought to be wanting; just as we cannot be without food and drink and all the works of this mortal body, yet our righteousness is not in them, but in faith; and yet those works of the body are not to be despised or neglected on that account.  In this world we are bound by the needs of our bodily life, but we are not righteous because of them" (Luther Freedom of a Christian).

(aside:  I can't help but notice the Platonic overtones here, which I take to be antithetical to the proper Christian view of the body, which I plan to write on extensively at some other time).

I won't repeat my worries about Luther's soul/body framework (see previous post); however, one should pause at the relationship between faith and works as espoused by Luther.  According to some of what Luther says, it seems that the works that flow spontaneously and naturally from faith is co-extensional to sanctification in the life of a Christian.  If so, then one should consider what the relationship is between justification and sanctification.

If that's right, then does Luther inadvertently disparage the role of sanctification?  I worry that he may be creating a distinction that undermines the sanctifying process.  For if one is merely justified in the act of believing or in the having of faith, and if one is immediately glorified upon death, then where does sanctification fit in this system?  Of course, one can say Luther considers room for sanctification since he does want to retain works for the Christian.  But if the works Luther regards are merely a matter of temporal affairs, then what is the role of sanctification in the grand scheme of things?

I am not assuming that Luther and others do not (nor cannot) provide an answer.  It's just not currently obvious to me what it could be (and I am willing to be corrected and informed of my ignorance).  My concern is that even if Luther can admit sanctification into his scheme, nevertheless it will be assigned a smaller position than I take it to be from the basis of Scripture (where I take the role of spiritual discipline and transformation to be integral to the sanctifying process, which also includes the body--cf. Romans 12, Romans 6, 1 Corinthians 9, 2 Corinthians 4).

On the other hand, if the works that flow naturally and spontaneously from faith are not co-extensive with the activities and practices of sanctification, then the question still arises as to the place and significance of sanctification.  I take it that sanctification is not a gratuitous appendage tacked on to a believer but is rather an essential element in the whole Christian life.  Any theological system that undermines or disparages the value of sanctification, then, should prima facie be considered dubious without further explanation.  To reiterate, I am not saying that Luther's view has no place for sanctification; what I am saying is that it is hard for me to know just what it could be (though again, I'm open to correction).

One last point.  From purely a Biblical basis, it is not obvious to me that justification and sanctification are as separate and independent as they are often treated.  In fact, much of what is said about justification in Scripture seems to be interchangeable with what is said about sanctification.  Thus, I have a further worry that Luther is making an unwarranted distinction that problematizes how we should think of the spiritual life (especially spiritual growth and maturation).  More to be said on this later!

Two natures?

Here's something striking that Luther writes (and I often hear quite a few Christians say similar things):

  "Man has a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily one.  According to the spiritual nature, which men refer to as the soul, he is called a spiritual, inner, or a new man.  According to the bodily nature, which men refer to as flesh, he is called a carnal, outward, or old man" (Luther Freedom of a Christian).

"It is evident that no external thing has any influence in producing Christian righteousness or freedom, or in producing unrighteousness or servitude... It does not help the soul... [if the body] is occupied with sacred duties or prays, fasts... or does any work that can be done by the body and in the body" (ibid.).

Although it is common to hear about a spirit nature vs. a sin nature (or flesh nature), I think this is poor hermeneutics.  Enough Pauline scholarship has been done to argue that Paul in Romans and Galatians is not talking about two distinct internal natures warring inside a single individual.  In fact, the locution 'sin nature' and its analogues are not found in Scripture.  Rather, Paul is referring to the mode of life under the spirit (which has been made most manifest after Christ) in contrast to the mode of life in the flesh (sarx), in particular the life of living under the Law of Moses and the traditions that followed thereafter.  One of the best scholarly pieces on this controversy that I have read is by Protestant theologian, Walt Russell (who hails from Biola University), arguing against interpretations like the one Luther held (and quite a bit Christians today)--anyone interested should read Russell's The Flesh/Spirit Conflict in Galatians.  It is also important to know the literary style of ancient texts so that one can gain a deeper understanding of what Paul is doing by pitting the spirit against the flesh, especially in Romans 7 (Russell claims that Paul may not be describing an actual internal struggle in himself).  Luther's starting framework, then, has an unstable Biblical basis.

From a philosophical perspective, I have no idea what is meant here by the expressions 'nature', 'inner', 'outward', 'external', or 'soul'.  I won't even begin to list my worries regarding the term 'nature', but what do 'inner', 'outward' and 'external' mean?  Is the spiritual person "inside" somehow?  And my body is "outside" of me (what a weird phrase)?  Does 'inner' refer to the soul, and if so, in what sense is the soul inside my body if the soul is supposed to be non-spatial?  Or is the soul a spatial thing, and is it literally inside the body?  If not literal, then what can it mean to say the soul is inside the body?  What are non-influential external things supposed to be?  Non-mental acts?  So are only mental acts capable of affecting my soul?  Or if not all mental acts, then which proper subset of mental acts are capable of affecting my soul?  And what is a soul?  Whatever it is, what is my relationship to it?  Am I identical to my soul, or am I (partly or completely) composed or constituted by my soul?

All this to say, I am not sure what to make of these statements that use these terms.  Of course the Bible uses expressions such as 'soul', 'inner' and 'outer'.  However, the term used for 'soul', psuche, often just means life, or living thing.  And the outer/inner concept isn't always referring to a duality of two entities (body and soul) but at times refers to the kinds of motivations, intentions and actions that are publicly known vs. the ones that are known by God.  Now this won't do for every passage, and one should look at every passage individually and try to interpret it in context (the study of Scripture never ceases--life is fun!).  However, Luther, like many others, takes passages from the Bible and beefs-up some of the terminological meanings that [i] may not have Scriptural warrant, and [ii] are either difficult to comprehend or just plain confusing.

Epistle of James

Luther argues that James is not of apostolic authorship for two reasons:

  [i] It is contradictory to what Paul and the "rest of Scripture" claims by ascribing justification to works.

  [ii] It does not proclaim the passion, resurrection and spirit of Christ (such proclamation being indicative of what counts as the gospel).

First of all, why can't one suggest that James and Paul (in Romans) are denoting two distinct sequential aspects of a single process?  For even though both are using the same term (justification) and using the same example (Abraham), it seems that they are talking about two different topics, which is most evident given the purpose and context of each epistle.  Indeed, it would appear that Paul is concerned with contrasting faith not from works simpliciter, but from "works of the Law" (probably both the moral and the ceremonial laws).  But such does not exclude works tout court, in particular the works that stem from the fruits of the Spirit.  As Dallas Willard often says, grace is not opposed to effort, but it is opposed to earning.  In fact, the Old Testament laws were not intended on saving and redeeming the people of God; rather, it was an elaborate life-support system to prevent greater moral and spiritual decay until the time came when the new covenant would be established and Christ Himself would come and pour new life into His people.

Now some contemporary Lutherans, especially those who desire to retain James in the canon, claim that the works are merely a fruit or consequence of the justification which is established by faith alone; however, that is not the most obvious interpretation of that passage in James.  There's much to be said about justification; but that's for another time.

Next, one should wonder why proclaiming Christ is the criterion for apostolic authorship.  I am NOT suggesting that proclaiming Christ is not the most central and fundamental message, because I think it most certainly is.  But why should that function as the criterion for inclusion of texts into the canon?  After all, Philemon does not seem to be concerned with such proclamations (just telling a slave to go home), and some of the other letters seem to have immediate purposes that are not primarily about such proclamations (though the person and mission of Christ is the framework and basis for most of what is said).  What must be examined is the original criteria for canonicity, which (sorry to say again) is for another post.

Lastly, if one's overall theology rejects tradition and the magisterium, then how will one ward off other attempts to preclude other texts in the Scripture based on some criterion which is itself not based on Scripture?  For Luther's criterion is itself not based on Scripture--it does not tell us to include only the books that proclaim Christ.  But if one relies only on Sola Scriptura, then one can perhaps posit another non-Scriptural criterion and reject other books based on that.

For instance, consider a homosexual who thinks that the primary message of Christ is to proclaim his acceptance of the down-trodden (prostitutes, Mary Magdalene, the slutty Samaritan woman and other outcasts), and that love is the primary concept, which seems quite sensible given a whole host of passages regarding love.  Advancing the criterion of canonicity to be such that it must proclaim Christ's love even to the sexually reprehensible, one could then argue that Romans should be ruled out as being a part of the canon since it goes against other books in the Scripture that evince the features in the proposed criterion.

Obviously I don't think this is plausible; however, solely from what Luther has said and from Sola Scriptura, I can't think of a reason for ruling out this person's criterion of canonicity--thus, as Luther takes James less seriously (and can ignore the justification by works clause), so the homosexual can take Romans less seriously (and can ignore the censure against homosexuality).

Both ways of reasoning, I take it, are deeply flawed.  My conclusion, then, is that one needs to provide substantive support for their criteria of canonicity that at the very least is not based on the Scriptures (otherwise, it would be circular).  What more would it be? Well, as I say, that's for another time.

On Grace

Consider the following construal of grace by Luther in his Preface to Romans:

  "[G]race is the kindness or favor which God bears towards us of His own choice, and through which He is willing to give us Christ, and to pour the Holy Spirit and His blessings upon us".

First of all, I take delight in the fact that Luther's conception of grace here is very trinitarian.  Unlike the common answer to the question "What is grace?" (which is usually followed with the reply "God's undeserved favor"), Luther situates this undeserved favor within a trinitarian framework.  But is that enough?  The trumped up competition of grace vs. works suggests that grace is solely a matter of what God does to us, which is something along the lines of being regarded as righteous because of Christ.

Although I fully agree with Luther that God has shown a favor that we do not deserve (for certainly no one deserves entrance into the family of God), I'm not sure if that is the only notion of grace at play in the Scriptures.  Indeed, consider what St. Paul states in Ephesians 3:2 regarding the "stewardship of God's grace", which implies a task and some measure of responsibility.  I take it that the concept of grace is much richer than the standard notion of undeserved favor (even if it includes a trinitarian element).

It is important to also realize that RC often uses the term 'grace' in a different sense, such that grace is the activity of God enabling and infusing the virtues of faith, hope and love into the life of a Christian.  Of course, God doing so is certainly undeserved by the believer, but more than receiving forgiveness and being declared righteous, the Christian is able to have such supernatural gifts of which the believer could not possess by his own human powers and abilities.

Although I find much good in both the Lutheran and the RC conceptions of grace, again, I find both still short of what can be said of grace.  As one of my favorite evangelical theologians has stated, grace is more than undeserved favor and more than the infusion of virtues, but it is God giving His very Self to us. Now this may sound as someone waxing poetic, but I think this latter conception includes both the Lutheran and the Catholic conception.  For when God gives Himself to us, we certainly don't deserve it, and the reception of God will certainly involve the infusion of virtues which cannot be attained by human power alone.  But it also involves so much more.  What more?  Well, that's a topic for a later time.  But one thing to note, grace should be understood in terms of God's love expressed in His covenantal plan to redeem the human race; and I take it that such an understanding of grace with the covenants will lead to a much richer concept of grace than merely a passive reception of transmitted righteousness (moreover, it seems that contrary to the notion of "grace perfecting nature", the Lutheran conception would have grace precluding or undermining our nature, which would be problematic).

One final note.  It's often thought that Catholics believe that along with grace, the believer must also engage in works in order to be justified.  Although there might have been some notable theologians who held to something like this (Ockham? Molina?), the dominant and currently dogmatic view of justification for RC is that it is solely the work of God.  For consider the Council of Trent, which declares that  "the efficient cause [of justification] is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies--gratuitously, placing his seal and anointing with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance" (Session 6, VII).  That is, the sufficient cause of our justification is entirely an act of God.

Words and Works

I am puzzled by the following statement from Luther:

"If I were ever compelled to make a choice, and had to dispense with either the works or the preaching of Christ, I would rather do without the works than the preaching; for the works are of no avail to me, whereas His words give life, as He himself declared" (Luther Preface to the New Testament).

Because of this, Luther declared his preference for the gospel of John over the synoptic gospels (and for similar reasons, his preference for Romans, Galatians and 1 Peter over the rest of the NT including the synoptic gospels).

If Luther means this genuinely, then this seems quite absurd.  After all, without Christ's works, we would not be saved, for "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification" (Romans 4:25).  Even Luther considers the gospel to include the fact that "[b]y his death and resurrection, He has conquered sin, death, and hell for us and all who believe in Him" (Luther Preface).

Of course Luther is NOT repudiating the works of Christ, but then this passage seems to be merely heavy-handed rhetoric (I mean, c'mon... what's up with "for the works are of no avail to me").  I agree with Luther that the gospel of John is "unique in loveliness, and... far, far superior to the other three" (Luther Preface), but not because it includes more of Jesus' preaching than His actual works.

His language appears to be employed in order [i] to continue his disparagement of works and [ii] to justify his preference of certain New Testament texts (he dismisses the letter of James, but more on that later).

Leaving aside [ii], I understand Luther's concern with [i], however the works of Christ are crucial in the life of the Christian.  For Paul tells us to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1), and Christ tells us to take His yoke upon us and to learn from Him (Matthew 11).  Of course there is more to be said here regarding faith and works (which I will get to in due time, for Luther himself does not repudiate the need for works, only that it is not part of our justification, which is simply a matter of Christ's alien righteousness being imputed into us).  But for now, I'm worried about this kind of rhetoric against works, for such rhetoric can then be employed as a means of excluding much of the Biblical grounds for spiritual transformation and spiritual discipline (just think of the host of Protestants who get all uppity-do against Dallas Willard).  Spiritual transformation is primarily the work of the Holy Spirit in us, but there is an element of our cooperation (which again can only be enabled by God working in us).  Instead of high-charged rhetoric, I think it is best to be clear and specific when it comes to targeting flaws in the faith (though Luther never seemed to care for subtleties and distinctions... where's Duns Scotus when you need him).

-e

In search of the church...

It is no secret that I have long been fascinated with the church of Rome; the desire to cross the Tiber has not been minimal.  On the other hand, my devotion to "Jack" of Oxbridge (i.e. C.S. Lewis) made me believe that I could stand with him, a "mere Christian".  Unfortunately, I am now convinced that Lewis' attempt at unity is, in the end, a failure (though a brilliant work nonetheless).

I believe that if Protestants are to remain separated from Rome, we must provide justification for our continued separation.  That is, the burden of proof lies with us.  For the Roman Catholic church (henceforth 'RC') has a legitimate claim to apostolic succession and visible unity, and Protestants need to provide sufficient reason for breaking away from such succession and unity.  Our Protestant forefathers believed that they possessed adequate reason, especially the magisterial reformers.  However, if no good reason can be given for remaining separated, I believe it is incumbent on the Protestant to return to Rome.*

In my attempt to avoid a drastic religious change due to a whimsical fling (though hardly a fling since my vision Romewards began in 2001), I have decided to take the next two years in a final effort to remain loyal to Protestantism.  To that end, I will be re-reading various texts by the reformers (much of which I have read, but now in the framework of desiring to stay on their side) and will evaluate which team I should play on.

Thus, I begin where, in one sense, it all began--with our good friend Martin Luther.  As I engage his works, I will be posting on my thoughts and reflections from time to time.

What I ask of you, dear friends, is to pray for me and my family, and especially to help us if we are going astray or making any serious error by providing your thoughts, comments, questions and especially criticisms.  The goal is not to be provocative but to desperately seek after the one whom my soul longs after, our mutual Lord, Jesus Christ.  I pray that any decision I make will be informed by a desire to follow after my Master.


Ora pro nobis, sancta Dei Genetrix, ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi.

-e



*(It should be evident that I'm leaving the Orthodox church [henceforth 'EO' for Eastern Orthodoxy... yes, yes, I know that there is also a western rite... but c'mon, then you get the cool moniker] on the sidelines.  EO also has a legitimate claim to apostolic succession and, to some degree, visible unity.  Although I have read quite a bit of EO literature, my studies of it have been far less than my investigation into all things RC.  To make up for that, when I am finished with my planned course of reading the reformers, I will turn my sight next onto EO before making any final decision regarding any allegiance to RC).