Justified By Faith Alone—The “Lutheran” Pilgrim

By Bobby Grow 

Martin Luther introduced a whole new concept, contra the Roman Catholic soteriological understanding, he introduced “Justification by Faith Alone.” At the time Luther introduced this concept (or made known what scripture had always clearly taught)—people judged their personal value through “religious lenses”. In other words, the way a person, ethically, lived their daily lives condigned  salvific merit to their eternal destination (i.e. salvation was seen as a process—justification and sanctification were synonymous). Once Luther gained a hearing, and acceptance, people no longer had a tangible gauge to measure what their eternal destiny would be. Furthermore this produced all kinds of psychological angst relative to ones personal value, i.e. since “good works” no longer (necessarily) bore witness, to them, or any of their peers, as to their eternal destiny—and, consequently, their present standing as a citizen of society (viz. since their present standing was viewed through a salvific works-righteousness lens—this was now gone—according to Luther).

Martin Luther was also a man of his time, and conditioned by his culture. As much as he believed in faith alone—and thus the cessation of the pilgrim’s (i.e. described above) sojourn (process) in salvation (i.e. Roman Catholic understanding of salvation)—he struggled to “live out” the implications of the “Justification by Faith Alone” concept that he so vociferously was articulating and forwarding. Note a sermon he gave on this struggle in 1532:

“Even when [salvation by faith] is taught in the best possible way it is difficult enough to learn it well, especially for us, who have been so habituated and trained in the doctrine of works and pointed only to the law and ourselves. And besides this [there is] our own nature, which is itself inclined in this direction. The doctrine of works is also rooted in and strengthened by habit . . . so that we cannot get away from it or think anything except that, if I have lived a holy life and done many great works, God will be gracious to me. Thus, we must contend both with our nature and with strong habit. And it is exceedingly difficult to get into another habit of thinking in which we clearly separate faith and [works of] love, for . . .even though we are now in faith . . . the heart is always ready to boast of itself before God and say: ‘After all, I have preached so long and lived so well and done so much, surely he will take this into account.’ We even want to haggle with God to make him regard our life. . . . But it cannot be done. With men you may boast: I have done the best I could toward everyone, and if anything is lacking I will still try to make recompense. But when you come before God, leave all that boasting at home and remember to appeal from justice to grace. [But] let anybody try this and he will see and experience how exceedingly hard and bitter a thing it is for a man, who all his life has been mired in his work righteousness, to pull himself out of it and with all his heart rise up though faith in the one Mediator. I myself have now been preaching and cultivating it through reading and writing for almost twenty years and still I feel the old clinging dirt of wanting to deal so with God that I may contribute something, so that he will have to give me his grace in exchange for my holiness. Still I cannot get it into my head that I should surrender myself completely to sheer grace; yet [I know that] this is what I should and must do.” (Quote taken from: Steven Ozment, “The Age of Reform 1250-1550,” who was quoting: “Sermon on the Sum of the Christian Life, LW, 51:284 (WA 36, pp. 352-75)

Luther was a man who deeply struggled with the angst of keeping the “Law” (as a Roman Catholic), and all its condemnatory aspects (so the Apostle Paul—see Romans 7); but who found relief in the wonderful gospel of grace. This differentiates Luther from, say someone like John Calvin, who sees a “third” use for the “Law”. Note Steven Ozment on Calvin’s understanding of the “Law”:

“For Calvin, good works did not have the direct bearing on salvation that medieval theology taught (read Roman Catholic theology); they attested divine favor and gave presumptive evidence of election, but they did not put one in a position to expect salvation as condign merit. On the other hand, Calvin’s teaching, like his conduct of the Genevan church, once again made good works and moral behavior the center of religious life and reintroduced religious anxiety over them. In Calvinism the presence or absence of good works came to be taken as a commentary on one’s eternal destiny.” (parenthesis mine) (Quote taken from: Steven Ozment, “The Age of Reform 1250-1550,” 379)

Thus, while Luther struggled against such a theology, Calvin reintroduces “Romanesque” soteriology under the guise of “orthopraxy,” i.e. equivocates the “effect” of salvation (e.g. good works) with the “cause” of salvation (e.g. faith alone in Christ’s works) so as to blur the two as indistinguishable—at least at a functional level. Now am I questioning Calvin’s commitment to faith alone? No! What I’m questioning is his articulation and the functional outworking of his view of salvation. He places the Christian back on the “pilgrims path” (see John Bunyan’s, “Pilgrims Progress,” for an allegory that exemplifies Calvin’s theology). The very path Luther rightfully disdained, and of which he knew so much about in his journey within the confines of the Augustinian monestary.

Of course Luther sees a place for good works, but these neither “affirm or deny” someone’s status as a child of God. Note Ozment’s remarks here:

“. . . while he too (Luther) recognized the commandments as a guide to Christian behavior and stressed them as emphatically as any other Protestant leader, he also resisted more firmly than any other the temptation to find either evidence of salvation where good works were present or indications of damnation where they were not.” (parenthesis mine) (Quote taken from: Steven Ozment, “The Age of Reform 1250-1550,” 377)

Hence, works (or keeping the Law) for Luther are not necessary components for determining a person’s eternal destiny—Faith in Christ alone is! Of course a person’s life, once changed by Christ, will reflect the moral attributes of God—but these are not the emphasis of Luther’s soteriological construct—nor are they in my opinion, the emphasis of scripture’s outlook on salvation. Anyone can “do” good works and keep the law “outwardly” (look at the Pharisees in the gospels)—but unless one is motivated by a “circumcised heart” (cf. Rom. 2:27-29) and a “love of Christ” (cf. II Cor. 5:14) the person is driven by “performance Christianity alone”. Once Christ came the tutor (Law) became obsolete (see Gal. 3:1ff).

My post here is prompted by my fellow blogger Brian and the article he posted at his site Christendom Blogosis. He is responding to Steve Camp’s article on the Law and the Gospel in which, Camp, provides a favorable review (a la R.C. Sproul) of Calvin’s Law and Gospel relationship. He (via Sproul) provides a caricature position of “Antinomianism” which historically would much more be in line with Martin Luther’s position (highlighted above)—than the slip-shot mention of it by Camp.