05-4 Theology of the..

14 LOGIA
cause. ...This whole thing the Scholastic theologians call
one change: the expulsion of sin and the infusion of grace. 23
Luther uses facio (make or do) and efficio (effect) to describe both
the remission of sins and the effecting of righteousness. Remission
is not granted to the sinner, it is done to the sinner. Facio and
efficio suggest that forgiveness is a power that is operative on the
sinner. Implicit in such terminology is the understanding that as
long as the power is operative, the process is not complete.
Luther makes more extensive use of
imputation language in the
Lectures on Romans.
nb
This lack of completion can be seen in Luther’s use of expulsio
peccati (expulsion of sin) as a synonym of remissio peccati (remission
of sin). Remission is not a declaration of forgiveness, but a
progressive driving out of sin. The sinner undergoes a change
(mutatio) that can be expressed negatively as the expulsion of sin
or positively as the infusion of grace. Both of these expressions
assume that justification is a healing process.
Sanative justification is implicit in the congruentia of the letter
and the Spirit which Augustine (and early Luther) identify. Justification
is a move from the letter to the Spirit. The letter kills
because it lacks the vis to perform the remissio/expulsio. The Spirit
continues to heal by pouring love into the heart, which we have
seen is a vis unitiva. As the sinner is drawn closer and closer to
God, his sin is gradually expelled and replaced by love.
Imputation
The fact that sin is not expelled all at once implies a need for
non-imputation of what remains. This is the third way Luther
speaks of justification. He says that we should pray for the nonimputation
of sin. “For it is never remitted entirely, but it remains
and needs non-imputation.” 24 This non-imputation is set firmly
in the context of sanative justification.
Luther appeals to Augustine for his understanding of justification
as imputation:
But the doers of the Law will be justified. This passage is interpreted
in a twofold way by blessed Augustine in chapter 26
of On the Spirit and the Letter. First in this way: The doers of
the Law will be justified means that through justification
they will become, or be made [fient siue creabuntur], what
they were not before, doers. Second, and in a better way, will
be justified means that they will be looked upon and thought
of as righteous [Iusti habebuntur et deputabuntur], as stated
in the gloss. 25
The passage to which Luther refers is De spiritu et littera 45 (xxvi).
On the surface, Augustine seems to offer two possibilities for
defining “justify”: the first is sanative (“they will become, or be
made . . . doers”), and the second is forensic (“they will be looked
upon and thought of as righteous”). The context of the passage
which Luther quotes indicates, however, that the second option is
not in fact forensic. Augustine gives two examples of justification
that fit his apparently forensic definition “look upon and think of
as righteous.” The first is the man in the Gospel who wanted to
justify himself by asking, “Who is my neighbor” This example
does not prove that one who is not righteous may be considered
righteous by God. The man in the Gospel wanted to be justified,
but he was not. Jesus’ response to him was to tell the parable of
the Good Samaritan. The second example is the petition “Hallowed
be thy name.” But according to Augustine, God’s name is
already holy. “Hallowed be thy name” is a prayer that it be
deemed holy by us. Since God’s name is holy in itself, this example
cannot be used to argue for a forensic understanding of justification
in Augustine. Augustine concludes his discussion of the
two possible meanings of “justify” by saying,
In the one case, “sanctify” [which Augustine uses synonymously
with “justify”] means that God himself makes saints
of men who were not saints: in the other, we pray that what
is ever holy in itself may be held by men as holy, may be
feared in holy wise. 26
In neither case does Augustine have in mind God’s reckoning a
sinner as completely righteous. Instead, the implication is that if
God reckons someone righteous, it is because God is in the
process of making him righteous just as men hold God’s name
holy because it actually is holy. Thus, “hold righteous” makes no
sense apart from “make righteous.” This perhaps explains why
Augustine does not generally employ imputation language in De
spiritu et littera. The language of making and healing is Augustine’s
dominant way of treating justification in this work.
Luther, on the other hand, makes more extensive use of imputation
language in the Lectures on Romans. We have seen above
that he prefers it to fient siue creabuntur. But how is imputation
different than making righteous At some points in the Romans
lectures one is hard pressed to tell the difference. In the scholion
on 3:7, Luther discusses the statement that God is justified. He
thinks the statement most properly means that God “accounts
people righteous” (iustos reputat). 27 But Luther’s illustration of
such an accounting is an artist making others to be artists (efficere
artifices). By choosing the word efficere, he blurs the distinction
between “account righteous” and “make righteous.” As we have
seen, Luther uses efficere to denote an operation or change that is
effective but not yet complete.
This does not mean that Luther sees no distinction between the
two. Obviously he does distinguish them since he expresses a preference
for imputation language. But this example shows that the
distinction is not vital to Luther’s theology in the Lectures on
Romans. If it were, he would take pains not to blur that distinction.
On the other hand, if facio and reputo are complementary
rather than opposed to each other, then it makes sense that Luther
would not always see the need to keep the distinction clear.
The complementary role of imputation may be expressed as
divine forbearance until the sanative process is complete. This forbearance
is grounded on the confidence that God will complete the