Imputation

McGrath gives an account of the development of the doctrine of imputation within early Reformation theology. He notes that there are elements of the doctrine already in the early Luther: “The reinterpretation of grace as an absolute external, and faith as a partial internal, quality permits Luther to maintain what is otherwise clearly a contradiction in his theology of justification ?Ehis simultaneous insistence upon the external nature of the righteousness of Christ, and the real presence of Christ in the believer . . . . Although Luther does not develop a theology of iustitia imputata at this point, it is clear that his anthropological presuppositions dictate that justifying righteousness be conceived extrinsically, thus laying the foundations for the Melanchthonian doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer. The origins of the concept of ‘imputed righteousness,’ so characteristic of Protestant theologies of justification after the year 1530, may therefore be considered to lie with Luther.”

McGrath interestingly notes that Melanchthon’s early work places emphasis on “the idea that justification involves a personal union between Christ and the believer. This contrasts significantly with his later emphasis on 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.” McGrath continues, “In his writings subsequent to 1530, Melanchthon increasingly emphasises the notion of iustitia aliena , an alien righteousness, which is imputed to the believer. Justification is then interpretation as Gerechtsprechung, being ‘pronounced righteous’ or ‘accepted as righteous.’ A sharp distinction thus comes to be drawn between justification, as the external act in which God pronounces or declares the believer to be righteous, and regeneration, as the internal process of renewal in which the believer is regenerated through the work of the Holy Spirit. Whereas Luther consistently employed images and categories of personal relationship to describe the union of the believer and Chirst (such as the commercium admirabile of a human marriage paralleling that between the soul and Christ), Melanchthon increasingly employed images and categories drawn from the sphere of Roman law.”

The Ausburg Confession (1530) makes no explicit mention of imputation of an alien righteousness of Christ, speaking only of a faith that God imputes as righteousness before Himself ( Hanc fidem imputat Deus pro iustitia coram ipso ). Melanchthon’s Apologia for the Confession , however, develops an economic model of imputation: “Just as a man might pay the debt of a friend, even though it is not his own, so the believer may be reckoned as righteous on account of the alien merit of Christ. 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.” Though this seems to exclude a “factitive” understanding of justification, in fact Melanchthon elsewhere speaks of the factitive aspect in close conjunction with the forensic: ” et quia iustificari significat ex iniustis iustos effici seu regenerari, significat et iustos pronuntiari seu reputari .” McGrath claims that “this ambiguity on the part of Melanchthon has led to considerable confusion among his modern interpretrs.” Protest in fact erupted fairly early, with Osiander’s claim that Melanchthon made righteousness a purely external affair while “saving righteousness was none other than the essential indwelling righteousness of Christ, arising from his divinity, rather than his humanity.” If the Finns are to be believed, Osiander is the more faithful Lutheran than Melanchthon, though it was the latter who won the day.

Calvin has an important place in this development. McGrath claims that “it was left to Calvin to dmonstrate that Osiander’s legitimate protest against [Melanchthon’s] externalization of Christ might be appropriated while maintaining a forensic doctrine of justification.” This Calvin was able to do through his emphasis on union with Christ as the fundamental soteriological reality, of which justification and sanctification are aspects.