05-4 Theology of the..

12 LOGIA
immutable Good” implies that he understands the Spirit’s work
as at least compatible with the Neoplatonic ascent of the soul.
This compatibility manifests itself at a number of points. First,
Augustine’s position is clearly characterized by a preference for the
internal over the external. This preference is consistent with the
Neoplatonic assumption that anything external is at a distance
from the One. Because of this distance, externality implies lack of
unity and therefore lack of power. The letter kills not because it
commands works, but because it is external and therefore powerless
to enable the works to be fulfilled. Second, Augustine
describes the work of the Holy Spirit as pouring caritas into the
heart that enkindles and draws one up towards the Good. This is
consistent with the role of e[rw" in Plotinus which is a “throwing
at” (e[fesi") the higher and the good. Finally, Augustine recognizes
a congruity and continuity between the letter and the Spirit.
He calls both Spirit and letter lex and says that both command caritas.
The difference is that the internal Spirit is more powerful and
thus able to accomplish caritas. In the same way, Neoplatonism
recognizes that while external items like matter are at a distance
from the One, they are still connected to the One by all the intermediate
levels of being that stretch down from the One.
Luther accepts Augustine’s distinction between the Spirit and
the letter. He distinguishes between the external commandment of
works and the internal fulfillment of that command which occurs
when the Holy Spirit pours love into the heart. This distinction
can be seen in the scholion on Romans 2:14. St. Paul, speaking of
the natural knowledge of God, states, “The work of the law is written
on their hearts.” 7 Luther comments,
It seems to me . . . that there is a difference between the statement
“The works of the Law [opus legis] are written on their
heart” and “The Law [legem] is written on their hearts,” for
the apostle did not want to say in this place . . . that they possessed
the Law written on their hearts, but he wanted to say
only “the works of the Law.” Therefore I believe that the sentence
“The law is written on their hearts” is the same as
“God’s love [caritatem] has been poured into our hearts
through the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5). This is, in the real sense,
the law of Christ and the fulfillment of the law of Moses. 8
In this passage, the opus legis corresponds to Augustine’s littera,
while the lex corresponds to Augustine’s Spiritus. The opus legis is a
weak external thing. Luther makes this clear a little later when he
says that the opus legis is the “the law that is written in letters concerning
the works that have to be done but not the grace to fulfill
this law.” 9 The lex itself, however, is the caritas which God pours
into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. Like Augustine, Luther recognizes
a congruity between the letter and the Spirit which he
expresses by using the term lex for both. The letter and the Spirit do
not contradict or exclude each other. Instead the Spirit fulfills the
letter. The operative distinction is between internal and external.
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
In his autobiographical statement from the preface to his Latin
works in 1545 Luther claims that he entered paradise through
open gates when he understood Rom 1:17, “the righteousness of
God [iustitia Dei] is revealed.” 10 Augustine’s distinction between
Spirit and letter was crucial in his struggle against the common
view of iustitia Dei. Nevertheless, as we shall see, this distinction
prevented Luther from coming to a full understanding of justification
in the Lectures on Romans.
The view that Luther rejects is articulated by Aristotle and
Cicero. According to this view, “righteousness” means “rendering
each man his due” [reddens unicuique quod suum est]. 11 When
this definition is applied to Romans 1:17, the result is that the
“righteousness of God” is that righteousness by which God punishes
sinners. This is the kind of righteousness Luther hated. In
Luther’s comments on Romans 1:17, he cites Augustine as his
champion against this misunderstanding:
By the righteousness of God we must not understand the
righteousness by which He is righteous in Himself but the
righteousness by which we are made righteous [iustificamur]
by God. This happens through faith in the Gospel.
Therefore blessed Augustine writes in chapter 11 of On the
Spirit and the Letter: “It is called the righteousness of God
because by imparting it He makes righteous people [iustos
facit], just as ‘Deliverance belongs to the Lord’ refers to that
by which he delivers.” 12
In this passage Luther’s iustificamur is parallel with Augustine’s
iustos facit. This fact indicates that Luther understood the verb
iustificare to mean “make righteous.” The exercise of God’s righteousness
is a transformative application of power rather than a
punitive application of power.
So far we have seen that Luther found Augustine helpful as an
opponent of Aristotle. But how far does Augustine’s help take
Luther If one searches through De spiritu et littera trying to find a
statement that expresses the mature Luther’s view of full forensic
justification, a passage from chapter 9 presents itself as the most
likely candidate. This is, in fact, the passage to which Luther refers
in the above quotation from the Lectures on Romans. Augustine
defines righteousness of God as “not that by which God is righteous,
but that wherewith he clothes [induit] man, when he justifies
the ungodly.” 13 The verb induit seems to have possibilities for
expressing full forensic justification. Is it possible that Augustine
and Luther are free from transformative power language when
they use this verb According to the mature Luther, the answer is
no. In the 1545 preface to his Latin works, Luther reflects on the
help Augustine gave him in understanding iustitia Dei:
Later I read Augustine’s The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary
to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God’s righteousness
in a similar way, as the righteousness with which
God clothes [induit] us when he justifies us. Although this
was heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all
things concerning imputation clearly, it nevertheless was
pleasing that God’s righteousness with which we are justified
was taught. 14
In Luther’s mature judgment, Augustine’s use of induit does not
express a correct understanding of imputation. Nevertheless, Augustine
is a great help to Luther negatively—in his fight against the
theological consequences of Aristotle’s definition of righteousness.