IMPORTANT ISSUES ON LUTHER AND JUSTIFICATION QUOTES ARE TAKE FORM REVELATION 13 BY NYRON MEDINA CONTINUED

"In the year 1510, Luther visited Rome to represent the Augustinian monasteries on certain business. As he reached Bologna, he became very ill. Here is what happened as God sought to fixate his study on the scripture........"

“Here the enemy turned his thoughts in upon himself, and he became greatly troubled with the sense of his own sinfulness, for the prospect of death filled him with fear and terror. But the words of the apostle, “The just shall live by faith,” like a ray of light from Heaven, chased the dark clouds away, changed the current of his thoughts, and restored his peace of mind.” Ibid, pg. 625 ..............."

"The doctrine held by Rome, which Luther condemned despite how this doctrine was structured, was in fact “justification by works”. Here is Luther exposing and condemning this species of justification.

“Wherefore those things which the popish schoolmen have taught concerning the justifying faith being furnished with charity; are nothing else but mere dreams. For that faith which apprehendeth Christ the Son of God, and is furnished with him, is the same faith that justifieth, and not that faith which includeth charity.” Ibid, pg. 98-99.

Wherefore the wicked and pernicious opinion of the Papists is utterly condemned, which attribute the merit of grace and remission of sins to the work wrought. For they say that a good work before grace, is able to obtain grace of congruence [which they call meritum de congruo because it is meet that God should reward such work]. But when grace is obtained, the work following deserveth everlasting life of due debt and worthiness [which they call meritum de condigno]. As for example: if a man being in deadly sin, without grace, do a good work of his own good natural inclination – that is , if he say or hear a mass, or give alms and such like – this man of congruence deserveth grace. When he hath thus obtained grace, he doth now a work which of worthiness deserveth everlasting life.” Ibid, pg. 121.

xii. Thus it is clearly seen that the species of justification taught by the Roman Catholic in Luther’s time is not to be called subjective or inner transformation even though they may use such words as “infused”. This species of justification is not an inner change, but merely a works derived acceptance by God, it is justification by works.

1. A good work before grace obtains grace.

2. God rewards such works.

3. After grace is obtained the work following merits or deserves eternal life.

4. A man in sin without grace do a good work out of his own natural good inclination.

5. He deserves grace.

6. When he gets the grace any good works makes him worthy of eternal life.

xiii. This is clearly a fictious justification so it has no real change in it.

1. We are not justified by any human works for to seek to be meritorious or earn salvation. Rom. 4:1,2,4.

2. Justification cannot be by works. Gal. 2:16.

3. It is God that justifies. Rom. 8:33.

4. God uses the instrument of Faith to justify us. Gal. 3:8.

5. The Faith that justifies us motivates us to the keeping of the Law of God. Rom. 3:31.

6. The justification we undergo by God actually changes the character, and makes us righteous instead of and in place of sinfulness. (Rom. 8:6; Rom. 5:1).

7. Thus we teach a change – oriented justification. 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

xiv. Another false concept that accounted for man’s good works being accepted by God to be meritorious for man was the concept of synteresis. This was called a “spark of goodness” in the sinner. Of this we are told.

“…they observed that almost all people had a conscience that led them to feel guilt. This sense of having done wrong was a leftover spark of the divine. This spark they called the synteresis, and they found it in almost all human actions. By extension, whoever loved self, spouse, and child was nonetheless, loving them in spite of human frailty. Granted, this was a partially good deed, but it was a good deed.” James M. Kittelson, Luther The Reformer, pg. 72.

xv. This “spark of goodness” was something good in man that could be used or improved upon.

“No one could attain the perfection of God, but people could be improved simply by appealing to the spark of goodness that lay within them.” Ibid, pg. 72.

xvi. Luther failed in using this alleged “spark of goodness” to gain merits for justification.

“During these years Luther discovered that true religion was far more than just the proper inclination of the heart and earnest attempts to work out his salvation. But every time he tried to fan his own spark of goodness, he found that all he was doing was focusing his attention on himself. From his own teachers he knew that to think of himself was to be in his most sinful state.” Ibid, pg. 80.

xvii. However this false concept denies the total depravity of sinful man.

1. All have sinned, we are told, and are coming short of the glory of God. Rom. 3:23.

2. No good thing (no synteresis) dwells in any unconverted man. Rom. 7:18.

3. No unrighteous man can do any good. Rom. 3:10-12.

4. Any conscience of sin or of guilt; is caused by the Holy Spirit convicting man of sin. Jn. 16:8,9.

5. Sinful man is filled with all unrighteousness, thus has nothing good in him that is meritorious. Rom. 1:29-32.

xviii. Even though the statement “the just shall live by faith” was the statement used by God to convert Luther, another important item Luther needed to understand in his journey to conversion and to comprehend the Gospel properly was the concept of the “righteousness of God”. Here is what we are told.

“Both the lectures and Luther’s own reminiscences reveal that he was preoccupied first and foremost with the problem of the righteousness of God. About a year before his death he wrote, “I hated that word [at Rom. 1:17], ‘the righteousness of God,’ which, according to the custom and the use of all teachers, I had been taught to understand in the philosophical sense with respect to the formal or active righteousness as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner.” This understanding of the righteousness of God lay at the root of his own search for holiness. “Though I lived as a monk without reproach,” he continued, “I felt, with the most disturbed conscience imaginable, that I was a sinner before God. I did not love, indeed I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners and secretly (if not blasphemously and certainly with great grumbling) I was angry with God, and said, ‘As if indeed it is not enough that miserable sinners eternally lost through eternal sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the Ten Commandments, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel’s threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” When Luther read Paul’s statement that the righteous live by faith, he concluded that he had to be righteous in order to be given faith.” Ibid, pg. 87-88.

xix. However, Luther’s idea that the righteousness of God was God’s wrath whereby He punishes sinners; was eventually corrected from the Scriptures. We are told.

“And before he finished, he had come to an utterly new understanding of the righteousness of God and of the Scriptures themselves.” Ibid, pg. 88.

“…Luther’s first and longer explanation was powerfully opposed to this traditional teaching. There he spoke of God’s righteousness as a quality God gave to believers and by which he made them acceptable in his presence. This was a radically new explanation…” Ibid, pg. 89.

xx. Again we are told Luther found out this.

“If God’s righteousness was basically something God gave away, and if the act of giving it away was his mercy, then there was no reason for Christians to try to be righteous in his presence on their own account or even “to do what is in them” as preparation for receiving sacramental grace. Yet even as Luther clearly stated his new understanding of the righteousness of God (which he would later call “passive righteousness”), he continued…” Ibid, pg. 89.

xxi. The point is that Luther found out that the “Righteousness of God” in the transition from being unjust to just by Justification, was God Himself; God Himself was the Righteousness of God that was given. Here is what Luther said.

“Christian righteousness, therefore, as I have said, is the imputation of God for righteousness or unto righteousness, because of our faith in Christ, or for Christ’s sake.” Martin Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, pg. 227.

“…the spiritual, divine and heavenly righteousness…” Ibid, pg. 242.

“Righteousness is everlasting, immortal and invincible.” Ibid, pg. 273.

xxii. At this point we need to consider that, in the Bible; different things are called the Righteousness of God. Here are they.

a. God’s righteous acts in judgement. Jer. 33:15.

b. The Law of God which is the Ten Commandments. Ps. 119:142,172; Isa. 51:7.

c. God Himself. Jer. 23:5,6; Ps. 97:6.

d. The Righteousness of God that justifies is the one that is apart from the Law, this is God Himself. Rom. 3:20-22.

e. This is the Righteousness of God in the Gospel that makes it work. Rom. 1:16,17.

f. This Righteousness of God is through the Faith or upon the Faith of Jesus Christ. Rom. 3:22; Phil. 3:9.

g. This Righteousness of God is in the truth or Faith of the Gospel. Rom. 1:16,17; Pro. 12:17.

xxiii. It must again be clearly understood that the Justification doctrine as propagated by Luther, was never an outward or objective justification against an inward or subjective justification as taught by Rome, no; Luther taught an inner or subjective Justification, while Rome taught a works justification or justification by works. Here is Luther showing that it was Rome’s “works justification” that he was against.

“I grant indeed, that I ought to do good works, patiently to suffer troubles and afflictions, and to shed my blood also, if need be, for Christ’s cause: but yet am I not justified, neither do I obtain salvation thereby.” Ibid, pg. 155.

“We must not therefore draw good works into the article of justification, as the monks have done, which say that not only good works, but also the punishments and torments which malefactors suffer for their wicked deeds, do deserve everlasting life. For thus they comfort them when they are brought to the gallows, or place of execution: Thou must suffer willingly and patiently this shameful death; which if thou do, thou shalt deserve remission of thy sins and everlasting life.” Ibid, pg. 156.

“…we conclude; that justification cometh not by the law.” Ibid, pg. 157.

xxiv. However, Luther taught a Justification by Faith alone, that is, without the deeds of charity or the Law accompanying it. And this Justification that Luther taught was a subjective change. The justified man was born again or an inwardly changed man. Here is Luther.

“If grace or faith be not preached, no man can be saved; for it is faith alone that justifieth and saveth.” Ibid, pg. 482.

“As touching the doctrine, it sheweth that we are made righteous, not by works, sacrifices or all the ceremonies of Moses’s law, much less by the works and traditions of men, but by Christ alone.” Ibid, pg. 462.

“Now, if they be above and without the law, then are they justified by the spiritual birth only, which is nothing else but faith; and not by the law or by the works thereof.” Ibid, pg. 425.

“So that the true doer of the law is to be understood, not in respect of the works which he worketh, but in respect to the person now regenerate by faith. For according to divinity, they that are made righteous, do righteous things… Therefore we, being justified by faith, do good works…” Ibid, pg. 251.

“Wherefore this is a true proposition: Only faith justifieth… For Paul here strongly concludeth that the law doth not quicken nor give life, because it is not given to that end. If then the law do not justify and give life, much less do works justify. For when Paul saith that the law giveth not life his meaning is that works also, do not give life. For it is more to say that works do not quicken and give life. If then the law itself being fulfilled… do not justify, much less do works justify. I conclude therefore that faith only justifieth, without works.” Ibid, pg. 321-322.

“If then the father or the whole Jewish nation was made righteous without the law and before the law, much more are the children made righteous by the same means that their father was. Therefore righteousness cometh by faith and not by the law.” Ibid, pg. 235.

“We must not attribute the power of justifying to that form [sc. charity] which maketh a man acceptable unto God, but we must attribute it to faith, which apprehendeth and possesseth in the heart Christ the Saviour himself. This faith justifieth without and before charity.” Ibid, pg. 141.

xxv. Concerning Luther and his teaching on Justification by Faith, here is what Mrs. White said.

“The great doctrine of justification by faith, so clearly taught by Luther, had been almost wholly lost sight of…” Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pg. 253.

xxvi. A summary of what Luther taught is as follows.

a. Luther taught a Justification by Faith that opposed the concept of Justification by works as taught by Rome.

b. Luther’s concept of Justification was by Faith alone, which opposed Rome’s justification by faith formed by charity which was good works. Thus it is Rome’s idea of good works for justification that Luther fought against.

c. Luther’s doctrine of Justification was a subjective, inner change, regenerated concept that revealed the person possessing Christ and the Righteousness of God within as a gift.

d. For Luther, only after a person was already justified by Faith, then he did the good works of the Law that was acceptable to God.

xxvii. All this teaching was in fact very Biblical. Here is what the Bible teaches about Justification.

a. Justification is not by works, as Abraham found out years ago before Christ. Rom. 4:1,2.

b. Justification could not be achieved by the good works of the Law. Gal. 2:16.

c. Justification was by Faith alone, which meant not by the works of the Law with faith. Gal. 3:8,9; Rom. 3:28.

d. In Justification, the Righteousness of God was imputed into the believer. (Rom. 4:11; Rom. 3:22).

e. In Justification, the believer possessed the Righteousness of God in his heart. Ps. 40:10.

f. When a person, is Justified by Faith, that Faith causes him to do the good works of the Law of God. Rom. 3:28,30,31.

g. Thus Justification was an inner moral change. (Rom. 8:6; Rom. 5:1).

xxviii. Thus Luther’s Justification by Faith reformation destroyed the Thomas Aquinas teachings and gave help to the fledging Reformation. (Dan. 11:32-34; Isa. 50:8,9).

i. However, the Bible tells us that the Protestant reformation itself will falter with the false justification which is flatteries. (Dan. 11:34; Eze. 13:10; Jer. 8:10,11; Rom. 5:1).

ii. The error that crept in which changed the reformation doctrine of Justification by Faith was a concept that “Justification is God declaring a person righteous without any inner change”. It was Luther’s trusted friend and reformer Melanchthon that first brought this error into the reformation. We are told.

“…the task of consolidating his [Luther’s] doctrine of justification was left to others, most notably Philip Melanchthon, who was responsible for drawing up the famous Augsburg Confession of 1530. It seems that Luther’s doctrine of justification was modified somewhat by his followers, such as Melanchthon…” Alister E. McGrath, Justification by Faith, pg. 55.

“Melanchthon gives the following definition of justification: “To be justified does not mean that an ungodly man is made righteous, but that he is pronounced righteous in a forensic manner.” Augustine had interpreted the Latin verb iustificare (to justify) as iustum facere (“to make righteous”), but Melanchthon eliminates this idea: justification is about being declared or pronounced righteous, not being made righteous.”

iii. Again, we are told that the change from a subjective Justification to an objective justification started with Philip Melanchthon and spread to all the Protestant churches and eventually became the outward distinction between the Protestants and the misleading Council of Trent.

“These ideas were subsequently developed by Luther’s follower Philip Melanchthon to give the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification”. Where Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration”. For Augustine, both were simply different aspects of the same thing. According to Melanchthon, God pronounce the divine judgement – that the sinner is righteous – in the heavenly court (in foro divino). This legal approach to justification gives rise to the term “forensic justification”, from the Latin word forum (“marketplace” or “courtyard”) – the place traditionally associated with the dispensing of justice in classical Rome. The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onward, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches from that point onward.” Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology An Introduction, pg. 387.

iv. The following chart shows the conceptual differences between the two justifications. The first is the false justification, the second is the true or real justification.