Analytic Justification in Luther

David Brondos has an important article on Luther’s notion of justification in the Winter 2004 issue of Pro Ecclesia . Brondos distinguishes between analytic conceptions of justification (that justification is the work of Christ by which one becomes righteous) from synthetic views (that justification is a declaration of the sinner’s status in spite of the fact that he has not become righteous). He explores the interests and difficulties in each position, and goes on to argue that Luther held to an analytic view, while still affirming that justification is sola gratia and sola fide . (He admits that Luther’s views on justification are varied and difficult to put into a systematic unity; he therefore concedes that Luther also can sound quite “synthetic.”)

Relying on the work of Luther scholar Karl Holl, Brondos summarizes Luther’s view as follows: “for Luther, although the new life of righteousness is necessary for justification, this new life is from beginning to end a work of God alone. God graciously gives sinful human beings the gift of faith and transforms their will as Christ dwells in them; through grace they are drawn to God, who changes their hearts and converts them so that they come to love God instead of themselves. The fact that this new creation is a work of God alone guarantees that the restoration of the believer will reach its ultimate goal, since God has the power to finish what he begins. Of course, this goal of perfection is not fully reached in this lifetime. In the present, however, God tolerates the sin of believers and declares them righteous because, through the grace shown them and the work of Christ, they are certain to become perfectly righteous someday. Just as a man who is ill can already be said to be healthy if he is under the treatment of a doctor who will heal him, since his future return to health is ensured, so can the sinner who is being transformed by God be declared righteous even now by God. Holl compares the manner in which God declares believers righteous to the way an artist already sees in the block of marble the finished statue which he will sculpt out of that block, even before he has begun; in the same way, God sees in the sinner the righteous person that he will ultimately fashion out of him or her. This means that the basis upon whhich people are justified or forgiven is the new life which God brings about in them through Christ.” Thus the certainty of salvation is “based on the affirmation that it is God alone who brings about in believers the new life necessary for them to be considered righteous.”

This justification is by faith, but not on the basis of faith. Faith is not the grounds for justification, but the means: “God does not declare human beings righteous on account of their faith, but on account of the sanctification, righteousness and obedience God brings about in them.” Faith in this context is trust, specifically trust in the God who can bring something out of nothing, who can bring new life out of a dead sinner. Brondos puts it this way: “Faith . . . should be understood primarily in terms of depending entirely on God for salvation and trust in God alone to do all that is necessary for one’s justification through Christ and the Spirit, as Luther taught. In other words, faith involves trusting solely in God, not only for forgiveness, but for the new life of sanctification, righteousness and obedience on the basis of which God justifies people. The object of faith is thus primarily not a doctrine, but a person, or more precisely, the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In effect, as Luther so often stresses, faith involves clinging to Christ ( fides apprehensiva) so as to depend exclusively on him to obtain forgiveness from God as well as to bring about through the Holy Spirit the change of life God demands.”

Brondos does not provide a lot of references to show that this was indeed Luther’s view (or one of Luther’s views), but instead refers to Holl’s work for details. What is striking to me is the close parallel between this reading of Luther and the views of Scott Hafemann that I discussed last November on this site. This view brings together faith and works without sacrificing the sola fide ; it unites eschatological justification on the basis of works (works that come through faith) and present justification by faith; and it avoids the pitfall of antinomianism that is often brought against the Protestant doctrine of justification.

Brondos goes on to discuss the implications of this view for an understanding of the atonement. In place of a satisfaction theory, he suggests that in the cross Jesus entrusted Himself to the Father, trusting that the renewal of Israel that He had been seeking throughout His ministry would be accomplished through Him. The Father granted Jesus what He sought, raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand, in a position of such absolute authority that Jesus cannot fail to accomplish what He intends. From that position, Jesus intercedes for the saints, so that the Father will overlook and forgive failings and sins while Jesus continues to accomplish His mission of renewing humanity and the cosmos.

I like this, particularly since it integrates the atonement with the narrative of Jesus’ life and ministry, rather than treating it as a kind of extrinsic addendum.
But Brondos wrongly dismisses the element of satisfaction in the atonement, claiming that “God actually forgives sins freely rather than demanding satisfaction or punishment for sins.” Propitiation is a NT concept, however, and so is wrath. The cross, according to Romans 1-3, is precisely an answer to the issue of wrath that is poured out from heaven against the ungodliness of men.