05-4 Theology of the..

LUTHER’S AUGUSTINIAN UNDERSTANDING OF JUSTIFICATION 15
process in the future. Luther says that he used to think that his past
sins were not forgiven because he still had them. He was delivered
from this terror by understanding the role of imputation:
Thus I was at war with myself, not knowing that it was a
true forgiveness [remissio] indeed, but that this is nevertheless
not a taking away of sin except in hope [in spe], that is,
that the taking away is to be done, and that by the gift of
grace, which begins to take sin away, so that it is not
imputed as sin [ut non imputetur . . . pro peccato]. 28
In this passage, Luther implies that there are two kinds of remissio:
one in hope, the other in fact. We may note the important
purpose clause at the end of the passage. The purpose of the
beginning of the removal of sin is so that (ut) it is not imputed as
sin. In other words, the non-imputation is grounded on the
incipient removal (auferre incipit) of sin. Conspicuously absent
is any reference to the vicarious atonement. The incipient
removal of sin displaces the atonement as the basis of the nonimputation
of sin. Sin is not imputed not because Christ has
paid for it on the cross, but because God is in the process of
removing it from the heart of the sinner.
The fact that the removal has not yet fully taken place means
that non-imputation is not justification free and clear. The
removal of sin is merely in spe, not yet in re. This is language that
Luther borrows from Augustine. 29
Thus when in the Romans lectures Luther makes statements
resembling simul justus et peccator, one should not suppose that
he means that the Christian is at once completely a sinner and
completely righteous. He is righteous only in spe. For example,
Luther states,
The fact is that he [the sick man] is both sick and well at the
same time [egrotus simul et sanus]. He is sick in fact, but he
is well because of the sure promise of the doctor, whom he
trusts and who has reckoned [reputat] him already cured
because [quia] he is sure that he will cure him; for he has
already begun to cure him and no longer reckons to him a
sickness unto death. 30
This passage is a good summary of the relation between imputation
and sanative justification in the Romans Lectures. Here we see
that the imputation is grounded on future healing. The doctor
reckons the sick man well because (quia) he will cure him. Furthermore,
we see that the man is sick in fact. To say that he is well is to
say something that is not true in fact, but that one is sure is going to
be true. Again, non-imputation is based on something that will
happen in the sinner, not something that has happened on the cross.
Saarnivaara concurs with this reading of the Lectures on Romans. 31
Thus we see that Luther’s understanding of imputation is still
captive to Augustine’s distinction between the Spirit and the letter.
Imputation is external, and Augustine’s metaphysics dictate
that anything external is necessarily weak and ineffective. The
basis of our salvation is still the internal operation of the Spirit
who pours caritas into our hearts. As long as this distinction
between Spirit and letter is operative, imputation, because of its
externality, can never be decisive.
MATURE LUTHER
The mature Luther has a different interpretation of Spirit and letter.
In 1540 Luther preached a sermon on 2 Corinthians 3:4 and
following in which he interprets the letter as the law and the Spirit
as the gospel. This differs with Augustine’s interpretation in a
number of points. First of all, Luther glories in externals. He
stresses that the writing on the hearts of the believers (the ministry
of the Spirit) is done through preaching, baptism, the Lord’s Supper,
and the keys. His language is earthy and physical. He preaches
that the tongue of the preacher is the Spirit’s pen. He describes the
work of the Spirit as follows: “Thus the Holy Spirit is in the tongue
and with it, and just as he speaks with the tongue, in this way he
places it in the heart that you believe. This is against the stupid
spirits who say that the external word is nothing.” 32 This glorying
in the external word is a departure from the metaphysics of
Augustine. For Augustine, all externals are far removed from the
source of being and thus are weak. The letter kills precisely
because it is external and incapable of providing the power to fulfill
its demands. Luther jumps off Augustine’s ladder of being. He
opts instead for a distinction that is not progressive and ontological.
Both law and gospel are external. For Luther the letter kills not
because it is external but because it demands. The Spirit saves, not
because he is internal but because he bestows the forgiveness of
sins. In fact, the externality of the Gospel provides the sinner a
sure anchor in the midst of his inner sin and turmoil.
The mature Luther has a different
interpretation of Spirit and letter.
nb
Another difference between Augustine and early Luther and
the mature Luther is what the Holy Spirit writes on the heart. As
we saw, Augustine has the Holy Spirit pour caritas (which early
Luther understood as a vis unitiva) into the heart. The mature
Luther, on the other hand, says that the Spirit writes “Credo in
Deum patrem, Iesum Christum, etc.” 33 and “Christus mortuus
pro peccatis.” 34 The Spirit pours not a force but the Creed into
the heart. This is a shift from salvation by an internal transformation
of love to salvation by faith in an external object, Christ. The
vicarious death of Christ, which played no major role in sanative
justification, is now central to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, we saw that for Augustine, there is congruity between
the letter and the Spirit. They both say the same thing. But for the
mature Luther they say opposite things. The letter says “Do this.
Don’t do that.” The preaching of the Spirit, on the other hand,
does not teach the Ten Commandments, but says, “God sent his
son into the flesh.” 35
When Luther jettisons Augustine’s distinction between the
Spirit and the letter in favor of the distinction between law and
gospel, he is free of the necessity of inner and upward movement
in justification. Indeed, there can be no movement from law to
gospel, because they say contradictory things. Luther rejoices in
God’s forensic declaration of forgiveness precisely because it is