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.)
No comments:
Post a Comment