In my first blog on this topic I suggested the claim that IAO is integral to evangelical orthodoxy is historically weak. At the moment I am on the second of three blogs making a case for this claim. My case is necessarily heavily dependent on secondary sources. I am, however, endeavouring to use sources recognised for their objectivity. Not a few are actually pro-IAO.
We saw in the previous blog on this topic that it is hard to argue, as is argued today, that IAO was a necessary part of the orthodoxy of the initial Magisterial Reformers. Instead we are obliged to regard it as late-Reformational. Mark Seifrid writes,
‘To insist that one define justification in terms of ‘the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ is to adopt a late-Reformational Protestant understanding…it is impossible to force Luther into this paradigm… Shall we then declare Luther outside the Reformation? (Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates Pg 149)
Bruce McCormack in his essay in ‘Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates on Justification‘ in the book of a similar title writes,
In its fully developed form the [Protestant] alternative [to Roman Catholic infused righteousness] was to understand justification in terms of a twofold imputation… Now I have deliberately styled this form of the Protestant doctrine of Justification as the ‘fully developed form’. I do so in order to indicate it is the product of a development in thought. It did not suddenly appear, as if overnight, in the early years of the Reformation but was the result of a good bit of refinement. In this development, the decisive role was played – for both Reformed and Lutherans – by Calvin’s response to the challenge of a one-time lutheran by the name of Andreas Osiander. ((Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates Pg 91,92)
Osiander, ‘the heterodox father of Protestant orthodoxy’, subsequent to Luther’s death, claimed that only the indwelling divine presence of Christ justifies. Ironically too, according to Seifrid, it was ‘apparently Osiander who first assigned the active and passive obedience different roles in Justification’. Osiander’s mystical views that by faith we share in the essential righteousness of Christ, according to McCormack, led to Calvin’s mature doctrine of Justification which he presented in his 1559 edition of his Institutes (material not found in previous editions).
Thus it is late in the Reformation before IAO became accepted. Even then, it was not accepted uniformly. Many doubted and rejected it. The evidence lies in persons and confessions. For example there seems to be some doubt that it was fully accepted by Ursinus, one of the two architects of the Heidelberg Confession (http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/) and certainly it was criticised by a student of Ursinus, David Paraeus who says the whole debate called forth
“more of dangerous speculation, than of solid truth, and more of learning, than of faith.” (R W Landis What Were the Views Entertained by the Early Reformers, on the Doctrine of Justification, Faith, and the Active Obedience of Christ?” Pg 422)
Dr Wes White, another advocate of IAO acknowledges,
To begin with, even though this denial was condemned by the French Reformed Churches (though this view was later tolerated even there), a great part of the Reformed Churches did not reject as ministers those who denied active obedience, let alone count them as heretics. For example, clearly Gataker, Twisse, and Vines denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, but they and their views were tolerated by the Westminster Assembly. Second, there were various ministers throughout the Reformed Churches who held this viewpoint, such as John Jacob Alting who taught at Groningen in the Netherlands. Third, the theologians of Saumur also denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Of course, the Swiss Reformed Churches condemned this viewpoint and other Salmurian views in the Formula Consensus Helvetica, but other Churches did not. Fourth, this denial was extremely common amongst the German Reformed Churches including theologians such as Piscator, Ursinus, Pareus, Crocius, Marinius, Wendelin, and Scultetus (among others!). Consequently, we can see that a significant minority did deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ often with toleration. (http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/)
Let me cite a Scottish Reformer of the period Robert Rollock (d. 1588), the first Principal of the University of Edinburgh:
“It may be demanded, Had it not been sufficient for our good, and to the end he might redeem us, if he had only lived well and holily, and not also so to have suffered death for us? I answer, it had not sufficed. For all his most holy and righteous works had not satisfied the justice and wrath of God for our sins, nor merited the mercy of God, reconciliation, righteousness, and life eternal for us. The reason is, for that the justice of God did require for our breach of God’s covenant, that we should be punished with death eternal, according to the condition denounced and annexed to the promise of that covenant. Therefore, no good works of our own, or of any mediator for us, after the breach of that covenant of works, could have satisfied the justice of God, which of necessity after a sort required the punishment and death of the offender, or certainly of some mediator in his stead. If, then, all the good and holy works of the Mediator could not satisfy that wrath and justice of God for sin, it is clear they could not merit any new grace or mercy of God for us.
But you will say, that the good and holy works of Christ our Mediator have wrought some part at least of that satisfaction, whereby God’s justice was appeased for us, and some part of that merit whereby God’s favour was purchased for us? I answer, these works did serve properly for no part of satisfaction or merit for us: for that, to speak properly, the death of Christ and his passion only did satisfy God’s justice, and merited his mercy for us.
If any will yet farther demand, May we not divide the satisfaction and merit of Christ into his doings and sufferings, that we may speak on this manner, Christ by his death and passion hath satisfied God’s justice, and by his good and holy works he hath merited God’s mercy for us, that so satisfaction may be ascribed to his death, and merit to his works; that the righteousness wherewith we are justified before God may be partly the satisfaction which Christ performed by his death for us, partly the merits which he obtained by his works for us? I answer; to speak properly, the satisfaction and merit which is by the passion of Christ only, both was and is our righteousness, or the satisfactory and meritorious death of Christ, or the satisfaction which was by Christ’s death, or the merit of his death, or the obedience of Christ, as being obedient to his Father unto the death, the death also of the cross, to be short, that justice of Christ which he obtained when in his passion he satisfied his Father’s wrath- this is our righteousness. For we may say, that either the death of Christ, or his satisfaction, or his merit, or his obedience, or his righteousness, is imputed unto us for righteousness. For all these are taken for one and the same thing.
But here it may be replied, If the works of Christ cannot properly procure for us any satisfaction nor merit, nor any part of satisfaction or merit, then it may be demanded, What hath been, and what is the use of Christ’s works, or of his active obedience, or of
the obedience of his life? I answer, that the holiness of the person of Christ, and of his natures, divine and human, and of his works, is the very ground or foundation of the satisfaction and merit which we have in the passion of Christ. That is, the excellency and worthiness of that person and of his works did cause that his passion was both satisfactory and meritorious: for if this person which suffered had not been so holy and excellent, as also his life so pure and godly, it is most certain that his passion could neither have satisfied God’s wrath nor merited mercy for us. For which cause the Apostle, (Heb. vii. 26,) speaking of this ground of his meritorious passion of Christ, saith that such an high priest it became us to have, which is holy, blameless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.”From A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling, pp. 53-55 in The Select Works
of Robert Rollock, Vol. 1 (Woodrow Society 1849)
Evidently, Rollock was a Reformed dissenter from IAO of the period. That there were dissenters to IAO is clear and this is reflected in the various Reformed confessions. From some, such as the Augsburg Confession (1530) it is clearly absent locating justification solely in the satisfaction of the cross.
Also they [the Scriptures] teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4. ( Article IV of Justification)
In others such as the Second London Baptist Confession (1689) it is clearly present.
Those whom God effectually calls He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting them as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone. They are not justified because God reckons as their righteousness either their faith, their believing, or any other act of evangelical obedience. They are justified wholly and solely because God imputes to them Christ’s righteousness. He imputes to them Christ’s active obedience to the whole law and His passive obedience in death. They receive Christ’s righteousness by faith, and rest on Him. They do not possess or produce this faith themselves, it is the gift of God. (Article XI)
Though it is entirely absent from the previous LBC of 1644
That those which have union with Christ, are justified from all their sins, past, present, and to come, by the blood of Christ; which justification we conceive to be a gracious and free acquittance of a guilty, sinful creature, from all sin by God, through the satisfaction that Christ hath made by his death; and this applied in the manifestation of it through faith. (Article XXVIII)
In other confessions the obedience of Christ is mentioned but the active and passive distinction is missing and the wording makes it difficult to assess whether IAO is intended or simply Christ’s obedience in death. The Belgic Confession of 1561 reads rather like the latter.
We believe that our salvation consists in the remission of our sins for Jesus Christ’s sake, sad that therein our righteousness before God is implied: as David and Paul teach us, declaring this to be the happiness of man, that God imputes righteousness to him without works. And the same apostle says, that we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ. And therefore we always hold fast this foundation, ascribing all the glory to God, humbling ourselves before him, and acknowledging ourselves to be such as we really are, without presuming to trust in any thing in ourselves, or in any merit of ours, relying and resting upon the obedience of Christ crucified alone, which becomes ours, when we believe in him. (Article XXII bold mine)
Later revisions of this confession align themselves more firmly with IAO. Others, like the Westminster Confession of Faith may be interpreted either way.
The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him. (Section VII article V)
Apparently the Westminster divines had intended to write ‘whole obedience‘ but under pressure from those who dissented from IAO declined. G A Van Court, himself an advocate of IAO, writes,
It is a little known fact that “the imputation of Christ’s active obedience was a matter of
prolonged debate at the [Westminster] Assembly.”A minority, most notably Thomas
Gataker (1574–1654), William Twisse (1578–1646) and Richard Vines (1600–1656),
believed that “Christ’s sufferings and death, or passive obedience, alone are imputed to
the believer.”
Thus the WCF chose language that accommodated their consciences. Dr. J.V. Fesko, a Presbyterian andstrong advocate of IAO who considers the omission (of ‘whole’) as “a deficiency in the Confession,” regretfully comments,
“This clearly allows for the position of Gataker, Twisse, and Vines on this subject.’ (Quoted with reference in The Obedience of Christ: A Response to Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker by Gregory A. Van Court)
The same absence of IAO is found in the Thirty-nine Articles and Homilies of the Church of England (1563 and 1547 respectively). In all probability such accommodation explains the cautious wording of other confessions too. Remember that most confessions are consensus documents and are worded in such ways as to maintain this consensus.
The truth seems to be that while many Reformed folks in the C16/17 (to say nothing of Evangelicals outside the confessionally Reformed side of Protestantism) affirmed IAO, a significant number did not and the early divines were not inclined to make the differences of the substance of the faith IAO was not considered a matter of orthodoxy thus confessions allowed for differing views on the subject.
Scottish theologian, Free Church founder, and historian William Cunningham summed up the wisdom of the debate like this:
It [the distinction between active and passive obedience] is to be traced rather to the more minute and subtle speculations, to which the doctrine of justification was afterwards subjected; and though the distinction is quite in accordance with the analogy of faith, and may be of use in aiding the formation of distinct and definitive conceptions, it is not of any great practical importance and need not be much pressed or insisted on, if men heartily and intelligently ascribe their forgiveness and acceptance wholly to what Christ has done and suffered in their room and stead. There is no ground in anything Calvin has written for asserting, that he would have denied or rejected this distinction, if it had been presented to him. But it was perhaps more in accordance with the cautious and reverential spirit in which he usually conducted his investigations into divine things, to abstain from any minute and definite statements (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967], 404).
For the Reformers and their immediate followers, ‘of the substance of the faith’ was justification by faith alone. Also ‘of the substance’ was imputed righteousness. The precise detail of how this righteousness was achieved was in the final analysis a matter of conscience. Nowhere was this latter point more evidently so than in the debate over IAO.
Again the case for insisting on IAO as a matter of historical evangelical orthodoxy is seen to be weak, indeed found to be wanting.
(to be continued)
Really helpful John, thanks. I believe there are some who take issue with Seifrid’s thesis that Melanchthon and Luther disagreed on the subject. I know of one heavyweight historian who believes that Seifrid’s sources were not the best and that here was a classic example of a NT theologian dabbling in church history.
Nevertheless, I agree with what you’ve written. As long as righteousness is alien and in Christ, we should be able to tolerate one another’s formulations.
Hi Nicky
Thanks for comment. I am aware that S Clark and Carl Trueman take issue. Scott Clark counters Seifrid in a Concordia Theological Journal to be found here (http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/clarkiustitiaimputatachristi.pdf). I have read Clark but not Trueman. I bow to Clark’s awareness of the history. I would have hoped that if Luther explicitly argued for IAO he would have produced quotations from Luther to make this explicit.
The quotations given teach imputation tied into union with Christ effected by faith. The image of marriage seems clearly important to Luther – both Clark and Seifrid highlight it. Clark’s quotation of Luther’s response to Melanchthon on the issue of intrinsic righteousness seems to sum up the most that can be judiciously taken from the examples given.
“Do you understand man to be
righteous whether by intrinsic renewal as Augustine, or by truly gracious
imputation, which is outside of us, and by faith, i.e., by trust, that has
arisen from the Word?”173 Luther’s response was unequivocal: “I think
this, and am most persuaded and certain that this is the true opinion of the
Gospel and of the Apostles, that only by gracious imputation are we
righteous with God.*
At the very least there is clearly controversy about Luther’s understanding of how Christ’s active obedience relates to justification. The language of the Augsburg Confession 1530 seems to favour Seifrid.
Landis seems to agree with Seifrid. See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7fQRAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA179&dq=r+w+landis+faith&hl=en&ei=UZfRTNyqCY6eOr_8kOkM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=r%20w%20landis%20faith&f=false
S Clark writes in his discussion of Luther,
In his summary of the argument in Galatians, he distinguished between
iustitia activa and iustitia passicla. The former is that accomplished by Christ
and the latter describes what we receive by faith in Christ. Humans are
capable only of civic righteousness. Eternal, divine righteousness comes to
sinners only through imputation.
This is our theology, by which we teach precisely to distinguish between
these two righteousnesses, the active and the passive, lest morality and
faith, works and grace, politics and religion be confused. For both are
necessary, but must be kept within their limits.
For Luther, this distinction is essential to the gospel; it is the thing that
distinguishes Christianity from all other world religions.
For if the article of justification is lost, the whole Christian teaching is
lost. And those in the world who do not hold it are Jews or Turks or
Papists or Sectarians, because between these two righteousnesses, the
active righteousness of the Law and the passive righteousness of Christ:
there is no middle ground.’
His distinction between active and passive righteousness was a direct
corollary to his distinction between law and gospel. The law demands
active righteousness or condign merit. It is this that Christ accomplished
pro nobis. Passive righteousness comes to us, and that is gospel. It comes to
us by imputation of Christ’s active, alien righteousness and is received
through faith. The ground of justification is a not personal, spiritual union
with Christ or Spirit-wrought sanctity with which we cooperate. The
ground of justification is Christ’s active obedience credited to us.
Two points.
1. Clark inteprets Luther and says, ‘The law demands active righteousness or condign merit. It is this that Christ accomplished pro nobis.’ Clark’s first sentence is correct but does Luther make the point of Clark’s second sentence? Certainly not in the quotations. Does Luther align ‘active righteousness’ with imputed righteousness? Certainly not in the quotations. By ‘active righteousness’ is Luther referring to the ‘active obedience of Christ’? Certainly there is nothing in the quotation that demands or suggests so. Clark is asking these quotations to carry a lot of surplus freight.
2. However, has Clark properly interpreted Luther here? Is Luther really saying that ‘The
ground of justification is Christ’s active obedience credited to us.’? I am not at all sure he is. Rather it is the passive righteousness that Luther believes is imputed. The active righteousness I think for Luther is the righteousness the law demands. In the believer it seems that this law-righteousness or ‘active righteousness’ is produced (albeit imperfectly) by the Spirit in our lives as a result of faith. This seems to make more sense of Luther’s words, ‘For both are necessary, but must be kept within their limits.’.
Clark seems to be imposing later definitions of active and passive back onto Luther.
Clark’s quotations can be found in ‘The Argument of Galatians’ found in the edition to Paul’s commentary to the Galatians found here. If you read this section I believe you will find they confirm my contention. In addition I quote from a website. The quotations used below are from the essay ‘The Argument of Galatians’ (though taken from Dillinger’s book).
In his Galatians commentary (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, tr. Philip S. Watson (Cambridge & London: James Clarke, 1953) Luther writes of passive righteousness,
.the righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness . . . which God through Christ, without works imputeth unto us . . . a mere passive righteousness . . .Therefore it seemeth good unto me to call this righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness, the passive righteousness [because it is entirely apart from all human efforts and works]. —Ibid., p.101.<
This passive righteousness of faith . . . which is the righteousness of grace, mercy and forgiveness of sin . . . — Ibid.
Regarding active righteousness he writes,
. . . there is another righteousness called the righteousness of the law, or of the Ten Commandments, which Moses teacheth. This do we also teach after the doctrine of faith.—Quoted in Dillenberger, op. cit., p.100.
Luther says that this righteousness consists in
. . . our works, and may be wrought of us either by pure natural strength (as the sophisters term it) or else by the gift of God. For these kinds of righteousness are also the gift of God, like as other good things are which we do enjoy.—Ibid., p.101.
Website: http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXII/32-2.htm
Interesting stuff there John. Will give the links a read.
Nicky
In summary of Luther Clark writes,
‘The ground of justification is a not personal, spiritual union
with Christ or Spirit-wrought sanctity with which we cooperate. The
ground of justification is Christ’s active obedience credited to us.’
In reading ‘The Argument of Galatians’ from which Clark is quoting I cannot see how Clark reaches his conclusions. Luther patently does not ground justification at any point in the active obedience of Christ in this paper, he does, however, again and again, ground it in union with a resurrected and glorified Christ (which the marriage analogy with which he is identified conveys). This union, humanly one of faith, gives the believer ‘a passive righteousness’ what we might term as ‘forensic’ perhaps better (for less loaded) ‘positional’ or ‘objective’. I am unsure if Clark is equating ‘spiritual union’ and ‘Spirit-wroght sanctity’. Clearly, Luther sees them as distinct. Luther sees righteousness as flowing from Spiritual union but not Spirit-wrought sanctity. If you like, it is the difference between ‘us, in Christ’ and ‘Christ, in us’ or, to put it another way, Christ at the right hand of the throne of God and Christ in the throne of our heart.
Below is a considerably abridged version of ‘The Argument of Justification’ slightly updated in language. It can be found online. It reflects well the essence of the original. If anything, the original more clearly delineates Luther’s concept of union.
The Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians
First of all, we speak of the argument of this epistle; in it Paul is seeking to establish the
doctrine of faith, grace, forgiveness of sins, or Christian righteousness in order that we
may know the difference between Christian righteousness and all other kinds of
righteousness. There are many sorts of righteousness. There is a civil or political
righteousness, which kings, princes of the world, magistrates and lawyers deal with.
There is also ceremonial righteousness, which the traditions of men teach. Besides these
there is another righteousness, called the righteousness of the law, or the Ten
Commandments.
Above all these, there is yet another righteousness: the righteousness of faith, or Christian
righteousness, which we must diligently discern from the others. The others are quite
contrary to this righteousness, both because they flow out of the laws kings and rulers,
religious traditions, and the commandments of God; and because the consist in our
works, and may be wrought by us either by our natural strength, or else by the gift of
God. These kinds of righteousness are also the gift of God, like all other good things
which we enjoy.
But the most excellent righteousness of faith, which God through Christ, without any
works, imputes to us, is neither political, nor ceremonial, nor the righteousness of God’s
law, nor consists of works, but is contrary to these; that is to say, it is a mere passive
righteousness, as the others are active. For in the righteousness of faith, we work nothing,
we render nothing unto God, but we only receive, and suffer another to work in us, that is
to say God. This is a righteousness hidden in a mystery, which the world does not know.
Indeed, Christians themselves do not thoroughly understand it, and can hardly take hold
of it in their temptations. Therefore it must be diligently taught, and continually practiced.
The troubled conscience, in view of God’s judgment, has no remedy against desperation
and eternal death, unless it takes hold of the forgiveness of sins by grace, freely offered in
Christ Jesus, which if it can apprehend, it may then be at rest. Then it can boldly say: I
seek not the active or working righteousness, for if I had it, I could not trust it, neither
dare I set it against the judgment of God. Then I abandon myself from all active
righteousness, both of my own and of God’s law, and embrace only that passive
righteousness, which is the righteousness of grace, mercy, and forgiveness of sins. I rest
only upon that righteousness, which is the righteousness of Christ and of the Holy Ghost.
The highest wisdom of Christians is not to know the law and to be ignorant of works,
especially when the conscience is wrestling with God. But among those who are not
God’s people, the greatest wisdom is to know the law and the active righteousness.
Unless the Christian is ignorant of the law and is assuredly persuaded in his heart that
there is now no law, nor wrath of God, but only grace and mercy for Christ’s sake, he
cannot be saved; for by the law comes the knowledge of sin. Contrariwise, works and the
keeping of the law is strictly required in the world, as if there were no promise, or grace.
A wise and faithful disposer of the Word of God must so moderate the law that it may be
kept within its bounds. He that teaches that men are justified before God by the
observation of the law, passes the bounds of the law, and confounds these two kinds of
righteousness, active and passive. Contrariwise, he that sets forth the law and works to
the old man, and the promise and forgiveness of sins and God’s mercy to the new man,
divides the word well. For the flesh or the old man must be coupled with the law and
works; the spirit or the new man must be joined with the promise of God and His mercy.
When I see a man oppressed with the law, terrified with sin, and thirsting for comfort, it
is time that I remove out of his sight the law and active righteousness, and set before him,
by the gospel, the Christian or passive righteousness, which offers the promise made in
Christ, who came for the afflicted and sinners.
We teach the difference between these two kinds of righteousness, active and passive, to
the end that manners and faith, works and grace, policy and religion, should not be
confounded, or taken the one for the other. Both are necessary, but each must be kept
within its bounds: Christian righteousness pertains to the new man, and the righteousness
of the law pertains to the old man, which is born of flesh and blood. Upon this old man,
as upon an ass, there must be load a burden that may press his down, and he must not
enjoy the freedom of the spirit of grace, except he first put upon him the new man, by
faith in Christ. Then may he enjoy the kingdom and inestimable gift of grace. This I say,
so that no man should think we reject or forbid good works.
We imagine two worlds, the one heavenly, and the other earthly. In these we place these
two kinds of righteousness, the one far separate from the other. The righteousness of the
law is earthly and deals with earthly things. But Christian righteousness is heavenly,
which we have not of ourselves, but receive from heaven; we work not for it, but by
grace it is wrought in us, and is apprehended by faith.
Do we then do nothing? Do we do nothing at all for the obtaining of this righteousness? I
answer: Nothing at all. For this is perfect righteousness, to do nothing, to hear nothing, to
know nothing of the law, or of works, but to know and believe this only, that Christ is
gone to the Father, and is not now seen; that He sits in heaven at the right hand of His
Father, not as judge, but made unto us of God, wisdom, righteousness, holiness and
redemption – briefly, that He is our high priest entreating for us, and reigning over us,
and in us, by grace. In this heavenly righteousness since can have no place, for there is no
law, and where no law is, there can be no transgression (Rom 4:15). Seeing then that sin
has here no place, there can be no anguish of conscience, no fear, no heaviness. Therefore
John says (1 John 5:18): “He that is born of God cannot sin.”
But if there is any fear, or grief or conscience, it is a token that this righteousness is
withdrawn, that grace is hidden, and that Christ is darkened and out of sight. But where
Christ is truly seen, there must be full and perfect joy in the Lord, with peace of
conscience, which thinks this way: Although I am a sinner by the law and under
condemnation of the law, yet I despair not, yet I die not, because Christ lives, who is both
by righteousness and my everlasting life. In that righteousness and life I have no sin, no
fear, no sting of conscience, no care of death. I am indeed a sinner as touching this
present life, and the righteousness thereof, as a child of Adam. But I have another
righteousness and life, above this life, which is Christ the Son of God, who knows no sin,
no death, but is righteousness and life eternal; by whom this my body, being dead and
brought to dust, shall be raised up again, and delivered from the bondage of the law and
sin, and shall be sanctified together with my spirit.
So both these continue while we live here. The flesh is accused, exercised with
temptations, oppressed with heaviness and sorrow, bruised by the active righteousness of
the law; but the spirit reigns, rejoices, and is saved by this passive and Christian
righteousness, because it knows that has a Lord in heaven, at the right hand of His Father,
who has abolished the law, sin, death, and has trodden under His feet all evils, led them
captive, and triumphed over them in Himself (Colossians 2:15).
St. Paul, in this epistle, goes about diligently to instruct us, to comfort us, to hold us in
the perfect knowledge of this most Christian and excellent righteousness. For if the article
of justification is lost, then all true Christian doctrine is lost. He who strays from
Christian righteousness falls into the righteousness of the law; that is, when he loses
Christ, he falls into the confidence of his own works. Therefore we also earnestly set
forth, and so often repeat the doctrine of “faith”, or Christian righteousness, that by this
means it may be kept in continual exercise, and may be plainly discerned from the active
righteousness of the law.
Let us diligently learn to judge between these two kinds of righteousness. We have said
before that, in a Christian, the law ought not to pass its bounds, but ought to have
dominion only over the flesh, which is in subjection to it, and remains under it. But if it
creeps into the conscience, play the cunning logician, and make the true division. Say: “O
law, you would climb up into the kingdom of my conscience, and there reprove it of sin,
and take from me the joy of my heart, which I have by faith in Christ, and drive me to
desperation that I may be without hope, and utterly perish. Keep within your bounds, and
exercise your power upon the flesh; for by the gospel I am called to the partaking of
righteousness and everlasting life.”
When I have Christian righteousness reigning in my heart, I descend from heaven as the
rain makes fruitful the earth; that is to say, I do good works, how and wheresoever the
occasion arises. If I am a minister of the Word, I preach, I comfort the brokenhearted, I
administer the sacraments. If I am a householder, I govern my house and family well, and
in the fear of God. If I am a servant, I do my master’s business faithfully.
To conclude, whoever is assuredly persuaded that Christ alone is his righteousness, does
not only cheerfully and gladly work well in his vocation, but also submits himself
through love to the rulers and to their laws, yea, though they be severe, and if necessity
should require, to all manner of burdens, and to all dangers of the present life, because he
knows that this is the will of God, and that this obedience pleases Him
Just some added further discoveries. It would seem that my understanding of active and passive righteousness in Luther is confirmed by others.
Kolb and Arand in their book ,The Genius of Luther’s Theology: A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church. By Robert Kolb and Charles P. Arand. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008, 240 pp.,apparently agree. Dane Ortlund in his review of the book writes,
‘Rather than obligating themselves to treat Luther systematically, the authors pinpoint and explore two foundational presuppositions with which Luther went about his ministry. This book is unique, then, in audience, purpose, and scope.
The two presuppositions form the two halves of The Genius of Luther’s Theology. Part One explores Luther’s anthropology, employing the hermeneutical matrix of his “two kinds of righteousness.” By delineating this righteousness as “active” and “passive,” the authors do not refer to Christ’s own active (law-fulfilling) and passive (penalty-bearing) righteousness as traditionally conceived within Reformed theology, but rather to the objective righteousness unilaterally given to the believer (received passively) and the subjective righteousness in which one then (actively) responds in faith-filled obethence. As both dimensions of righteousness work in tandem, humanity once again becomes, meaningfully though not perfectly, what it was meant to be. After defining what it means to be human, chapter one delineates these two spheres of existence and insists that, though inseparable, the two aspects of righteousness must be kept distinct, alleging that the “crux of the Lutheran reformation” hinged on this distinction (p. 30).’
Ortlund recommends the book enthusiastically.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200812/ai_n31171960/?tag=content;col1