Some further reflections on Justification

As a follow up to my previous post, contrasting the views on justification between Lutheran and Reformed theology, I will now note that there are some further differences, this time within the Lutheran tradition.

In the post, I noted how Tuomo Mannermaa, who spearheaded the so-called New Finnish Interpretation of Luther,¹ notes that for Luther, faith is not just an external act of the will but the very presence of Christ in the believer.² He argues that this perspective was lost, or at least heavily altered, in the early Lutheran tradition, in the Formula of Concord (abbreviated FoC). What I will do, is to show that on the question of presence, the Formula not only contradicts Luther himself but also Confessio Augustana or the Augsburg Confession (abbreviated CA), the main Lutheran confession.³

In his article on justification and theosis in Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox theology, Mannermaa notes how the language of God’s indwelling (Lt. inhabitatio Dei) is a central theme in the Formula. Mannermaa writes:

Contrary to the assumptions of modern Protestant thought classic Lutheranism is undoubtedly familiar with the notion of God’s essential indwelling in the believer (inhabitatio Dei). The classic text dealing with God’s indwelling is found in the Formula of Concord (FC). According to this text, God, in the very fullness of his essence, is present in the believer. Important here is to recognize that any notion that God himself does not “dwell” in the Christian and that only his “gifts” are present in the believer is explicitly rejected.⁴

He goes on to note, however, that the Formula introduces a relation between justification and indwelling that is not the same as that found in Luther and overly forensic:

Thus, in the Formula of Concord, “justification by faith” merely denotes the forgiveness of sins that is “imputed” to a human being on the basis of the perfect obedience and complete merit of Christ. But the inhabitatio Dei is distinguished conceptually as a separate phenomenon that is logically subsequent to justification.⁵

We can see this in the Formula, which, while acknowledging that God indeed indwells the believer,

this indwelling of God is not the righteousness of faith, which St. Paul treats and calls iustitia Dei (that is, the righteousness of God), for the sake of which we are pronounced righteous before God. Rather, this indwelling is a result of the righteousness of faith which precedes it, and this righteousness [of faith] is nothing else than the forgiveness of sins and the acceptance of poor sinners by grace, only because of Christ’s obedience and merit.⁶

Thus we see that justification and divine indwelling is separated, which Mannermaa notes is contrary to Martin Luther’s theology, where “the relation between justification and the divine indwelling in the believer is, undoubtedly, defined differently from the formulation of the Formula of Concord. The Reformer’s notion of the “righteousness of faith” is permeated by christological thinking. Luther does not separate the person of Christ from his work.”⁷ As I noted in my post, Mannermaa goes on to point out how Luther maintains that faith is the very presence of Christ. In his commentary on Galatians, Luther says that “in faith itself, Christ is present” (Lt. in ipsa fide Christus adest). Now, as far as I know, Mannermaa does not contrast this perspective from the Formula with that of Confessio Augustana (CA), but I have found that there is a significant difference.

In article IV, the confession states that “human beings cannot be justified before God by their own powers, merits, or works” but that “they are justified as a gift on account of Christ through faith when they believe that they are received into grace and that their sins are forgiven on account of Christ, who by his death made satisfaction for our sins.”⁸ The important thing here is to note that people are justified “on account of Christ through faith.” Read independently of its historic context, this might not mean that this consists in Christ’s indwelling, but read in light of Luther’s commentary on Galatians, written just five years after Confessio Augustana was published, I see no reason to reject it. But the real kicker comes in the very next article, V (my emphasis):

So that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and the sacraments as through instruments the Holy Spirit is given, who effects faith where and when it pleases God in those who hear the gospel, that is to say, in those who hear that God, not on account of our own merits but on account of Christ, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace on account of Christ. Galatians 3[:14b*]: “So that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

Through teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments, we receive the Spirit and through this gift, we “obtain this faith” (which justifies). So CA, then, explicitly teaches that God dwells in the believer logically prior to his justification, which comes through faith (which is also divine indwelling through Christ). It’s all indwelling. But, as we have seen, this is rejected by the Formula: “Rather, this indwelling is a result of the righteousness of faith which precedes it.”⁹ So what does that mean for me, as a Lutheran priest?

Well, it means that while I do read the Formula as a historical document, and evaluate the arguments as any other text, I do not follow it as binding. But that is not problematic, since my church (the Church of Norway) has never held it as binding, and neither has the Church of Denmark (which is relevant, since the Reformation was introduced to both Denmark and Norway by the Danish king, who ruled both). In 1580, when the Danish King, Frederik II, received a copy of the Formula, he threw it on the fire and made sure that it was not binding on the then Church of Denmark-Norway. He even made it punishable to even discuss it.¹⁰ The only confessions that are binding on the churches of Norway and Denmark are the three ecumenical creeds (Apostolicum, Nicenum, and Athanasium), Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism.¹¹

There is a real difference between Confessio Augustana and the Formula on this question, and here I side with the former, not just because I am bound to it but because I genuinely believe that justification must be through the presence of God, in Christ. If it is not, it becomes a thing I do, not a gift I receive.

Notes:

1. For a good introduction, see Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds., Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

2. See Tuomo Mannermaa, “Justification and Theosis in Lutheran-Orthodox Perspective,” in Union with Christ, eds., Braaten and Jenson, 25-41.

3. For the English translation of the Lutheran confessions, see The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, eds., Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000). For a critical edition of the Latin and German texts, see Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche, vollständige neuedition, ed., Irene Dingel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). If not otherwise noted, all quotations of Confessio Augustana follow the translation of the Latin text. In the translation, Confessio Augustana is on pp. 27-105, while the Formula of Concord is on pp.486-523 (the Epitome, abbreviated Epit.) and pp.524-660 (the Solid Declaration, abbreviated Sol. Dec.). The equivalent pages in Die Bekenntnisschriften are 85-225, 1216-1303, and 1304-1607.

4. Mannermaa, “Justification and Theosis,” 27.

5. Mannermaa, “Justification and Theosis,” 27.

6. Sol. Dec. III,54, cf. II, 54-56, 89; Epit. II, 5; IV, 15.

7. Mannermaa, “Justification and Theosis in Lutheran-Orthodox Perspective,” 28.

8. See my previous post on how to understand this with regards to imputation.

9. Sol. Dec. III,54.

10. See Paul Douglas Lockhart, Frederik II and the Protestant Cause: Denmark’s Role in the Wars of Religion, 1559-1596 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 173 (cf. 157-174). Also see Rasmus Andersen, “The Church of Denmark and the Anglican Communion” (paper read before the Scandinavian Episcopal Church Association) and Carsten Bach-Nielsen, “The Role of the Lutheran Church in Denmark” (Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte 25:2, 2012), 293-310 (esp. 296-297).

11. See Arve Brunvoll and Kjell Olav Sannes, Vedkjenningsskriftene til Den norske kyrkja (Oslo: Lunde Forlag, 2017), 7-9; Johanne Stubbe Teglbjærg Kristensen and Nete Helene Enggaard, “Den Danske Folkekirkes Bekendelsesskrifter: Indledningsovervejelser med fokus på skrifternes forskellighed og enhed” (Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 86, 2023), 101-131.