7. The Terminology Employed in Presenting the Doctrine of Justification.

7. The Terminology Employed in Presenting the Doctrine of Justification.

justification. For the correct view of the Christian Doctrine of Justification the following ecclesiastical terminology is used: a. Justification happens "by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith". Formula of Concord (615:25 [Trigl. 923, Sol. Decl. Il, 25]): Ad iustificationem tantum haec requiruntur atque necessaria sunt: gratia Dei, meritum Christi et fides. Here we can only compile what has been presented earlier. "By grace" means in justification God's gracious disposition (gratuitum Dei favorem), which is present in God for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction and is offered as an object of faith in the means of grace. "Grace" in the sense of the gift of grace (gratia infusa) is not included here, but excluded."!46) — "For whether someone calls himself a monk or a Turk, Jew, Anabaptist etc.. For when this article is gone, there is nothing left but error, hypocrisy, godlessness, idolatry, however much it may appear to be the highest truth, as worship, holiness.

reconciliation in its proclamation); 1 Cor. 2:2; Jn. 5:39.

Christian righteousness, insisting so much on it and doing it so earnestly, that it may remain in constant use and be clearly distinguished from the active righteousness of the law. In no other way will we be able to preserve true theology (for it is from this and in this doctrine alone that the Church comes into being and consists), but we will immediately become jurists, ceremonialists, teachers of the law, papists; Christ will be obscured, and no one can be properly taught and uplifted in the Church. Therefore, if we wish to be preachers and teachers of others, we must take great care in these things and well record this difference between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of Christ".

saving grace", p. 5 ff. This concept of "grace means for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction (satisfactio vicaria), "since he has done enough for us to the law and paid for our sin." '4°) This is to be held a) against the Romans, who, in addition to Christ's merit, make "poured out grace", love, etc. the causa of justification, b) against all enthusiasts who do not make Christ's merit but the "Christ in us" the basis of justification, c) against all modern theologians who reject satisfactio vicaria as too "juridical" and "material" and think: "Basically seen, everything must receive an ethical turn."!** They place beside Christ's work of reconciliation "as co-founding for his value before God" the "transformation of mankind".

that adheres to the means of grace ordered by God, by which the forgiveness of sins or justification acquired by Christ is promised and at the same time faith is worked, or rather strengthened. The Apology expresses this in this way: Cum Deo non potest agi, Deus non potest apprehendi nisi per verbum. Ideo iustificatio fit per verbum, sicut Paulus inquit (Rom. 1, 16):, Evangelium est potentia Dei ad salutem omni credenti. Item (10, 17):, Fides est ex auditu.... Si tantum fit iustificatio per verbum et verbum tantum fide apprehenditur, sequitur, quod fides iustificat. [Google] [Trigl. 139, Art. IV [II], 67] Whoever does not let the external means of grace ordered by God be the media dottké of justification, does not let faith be the medium AnzttK6v of justification. '4°° The enthusiasts is cursed by Rome, Trid., sess. 6, can. 11. (cited in footnote 26). In view of such scriptural passages as 1 Petr. 4:11; Rom. 15:15. 16; 1 Petr. 2:19, it is not reddish to assert with Cremer (differently Grimm and Preuschen) that "grace" in Scripture is never used in the sense of a gift of grace, but with Chemnitz etc. it is to be admitted: Vocabulum gratiae in Scriptura... aliquando etiam dona ipsa, quae ex benevolentia conferuntur, significat. It must be noted, however, that "grace" in the sense of the "gift of grace" inherent in man cannot be made a causa of justification. (Footnotes 21, 22, 23.)

F. C., Sol. Decl., I, 14; 935, ibid., 56 ff]

p. 597 Cf. the detailed presentation under "Grace in Christ", p. 17 ff., and "The Vicarious Satisfaction", p. 407 ff., "Modern Theories of Reconciliation, pp. 429 ff.

Lutherans of St. Louis that they had only "brought 5000 to the church", and the newer "experience" theologians, who teach a gift and effect of grace apart from and alongside the Word of God, substitute inner "experiences," feelings, moods, and changes for faith. The whole term "by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith" expresses what, according to the Formula of Concord, all the theologians of the Augsburg Confession agree on, namely "that all our righteousness is to be sought outside us and outside all people for merit, work, virtue and worthiness"."!4°) This is to be held against the Romans, the enthusiasts and the more recent "experience" theologians, who all, albeit in different ways, put justice in us in place of justice outside us, thus denying the factors "by grace", "for Christ's sake", "by faith" in their scriptural sense.. To clarify the Christian concept of justification, it is necessary to point out the difference between divine justification and justice in civil judicial proceedings. In the civil court the judge declares the just man just and the guilty man guilty. Thus is the divine order in civil court. The judge who declares an unjust person because, instead of following the American revivalist method, they clung to the "sacramental religion", i.e. the external means of grace. With this old "system" the Lutherans of St. Louis taught a salvation "without repentance or faith". Walther responded to this: "The reason why the old Lutheran Church so earnestly adhered to the means of grace was not because it wanted to heal people without repentance and faith, as it did with bodily medicines which one only has to take and which then also work while sleeping, but because of this, that it holds so earnestly that the poor sinner becomes righteous and saved before God by faith alone, without works, without merit, by grace alone, that is, not by doing, working, earning anything himself, but that God offers him everything in the means of grace and works through them. In this sense, we are happy to accept that our religion is called a "sacramental" religion. (L. u W. 1862, pp. 152 f.)

righteous, is an abomination to God (Prov. 17:16). But what is forbidden to the earthly judge, God does in the justification that comes through the Gospel and faith. God speaks righteousness to the "godless" (tov aceBi aceBy Rom. 4:5). The Lutheran Confessions also point to this difference between the actus forensis in divine justification and in civil judgment. Thus it says in Apology, p. 139 [Zrigl. 207, Art. II, 185]: Itague quum hoc loco iustitia nostra sit imputatio alienae iustitiae, aliter hic de iustitia loquendum est, quam quum in philosophia aut in foro quaerimus iustitiam proprii operis. [Therefore, since in this place our righteousness is the imputation of another's righteousness, we must speak of righteousness differently here, than when we seek the righteousness of our own work in philosophy or in the forum.] Luther calls the transfer of the secular court proceedings to the divine method of justification "poison of the devil" and "the most harmful pestilence" (pestilentissima pestis). ‘4° It is a characteristic of good Papists and bad Protestants to establish the principle that God can always call only those people righteous who in themselves are actually righteous either completely or in the seed or the beginning. Another way of justification was not suitable for God. '° But God did not judge himself according to this wisdom. Just as he declared the Christ who is righteous in himself to be unjust (apaptiav éxoinoev, 2 Cor. 5:21), so he also declares the man who is unjust in himself to be just (Sikato1 tov aceBby, Rom. 4:6). All those who criticize this divine method of justification forget the divine method of redemption, that is, they forget that God has placed His incarnate Son in the place of men under the obligation and punishment of His law given to human beings (Gal. 4:4, 6; 3:13), and after this self-confrontation with His demanding and punishing justice now justifies by the Gospel and faith people who are unjust in themselves, that is, who have not kept any commandment of God, but have transgressed all. '4° Here we must remember that we do not make it unnecessarily difficult for ourselves to prove the actus forensis in Scripture. It is certainly possible,'*) but not necessary to prove that Auca1otv is always used in the New Testament in a declaratory sense. The completely resounding proof

because of them; if you have done evil works, you will not be condemned because of them.

; cf. also Chemnitz, Loci, L. de iustifleatione, p. m. 249. lies already in the fact that, according to Scripture, God declares "the ungodly" to be righteous "without law" (y@pic vouov), "without works of the law" (yopic Epy@v vopov), that is, without making any moral demand on man, and reckons faith to be righteousness in contrast to human goodness and human action. '*) That "to justify" means "to declare someone just" is something that at best both Roman ' and modern theologians want to admit. But they take it for granted that God can only declare man righteous if he is more or less righteous in himself. Otherwise there would be an error in God's judgment. Clarence A. Beckwith '4 at first doubts "the forensic interpretation of dikaioun as the only meaning in Paul's writings". Then he continues: "Even when a forensic judgment is indicated by dikaioun, this is grounded not in an outside condition, but in an actual inner virtue. It does not, like works, make a demand on God, but it constitutes a ground on which one is forgiven who forsakes his sin and identifies himself with Christ. Some of those who hold this general view of dikaioun restrict its main reference to the initial moment of conversion,!*>) while others extend it to cover the entire period of Christian experience—one is justified according as he is sanctified. '*° But against these and all other objections it is sufficient to point out that Aicatoév has with it as a closer definition the ympic vonov, y@pic épywv vonov [without law, without works of law’], etc., whereby every moral quality on the part of man is excluded and thus the actus forensis is irrefutably proven. The actus forensis is also clearly taught in all scriptural statements in which justification is described as forgiveness of sins, covering of sins, non-imputation of sins. '*7

EpyaCopéve, Tatevovtt dé Ei TOV SIKALOVVTG TOV TOV acEfr).

appended to Ihmels' article.

forgiven ], emixadvdatetv tas apaptias [sins are covered], ov ov-a1 apaptiav [not impute sins] as synonyms of Aoyiontai ducatoovvny [God imputeth righteousness and duxa.oiiv. Correct is Luthardt: This word" (the quotation from the 32nd Psalm) "shows to excess how Paul understands justification. Not as a moral change of man, nor as a divine recognition Justification through faith. [Eng. ed. ~ 526] The actus forensis in the sense of Scripture is denied not only by the Romans, '*® but also by all apostate Protestants, who consider the doctrine of Scripture of the declaration of righteousness of an in itself unjust person to be a misfortune and who, in order to save the ethics and logic of God, in one form or another establish the principle that the object of the divine declaration of righteousness must also be more or less just in itself. This includes enthusiasts such as Andreas Osiander (¢ 1552),!* Kaspar Schwenkfeldt (¢ 1561)!*®° and Valentin Weigel (+ 1588)!*8 as well as the Mennonites, the of a corresponding moral condition of man, but as identical with the forgiveness of sins, as the "justification" (righteousness) "of man in the eyes of God, despite the non-existence of a corresponding moral condition. This is of decisive importance for the correct understanding of Pauline, that is, biblical teaching. Bengel: Synonym: aMléval, EMiKAAVATEL, OV AoyiCeoFar [‘to forgive,’ ‘to cover,’ ‘not to impute], ut peccatum commissum habeatur pro non commisso [‘so that a sin committed may be considered as not committed.

nominamur et sumus, iustitiam in nos recipientes, unusquisque suam secundum mensuram, quam Spiritus Sanctus score singulis, prout vult, et secundum propriam cuiusque dispositionem et cooperationem.

who teach that we are justly respected only because of the forgiveness of sins. God is not so unjust that he should consider righteous him in whom there is nothing of true justice at all. (Disputatio de iustiflcatione 1550, thes. 73,74. German published by Osiander in 1551. the German translation by Arnold, Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, Schaffhausen 1740, Volume I, 925 f.)

forgiveness of sins by heart from faith, as one bought indulgences, and that God for the sake of Christ mediatoris, the mediator, does not want to attribute sin to us.......as 1f God were to say to us in death or in the Last Day: "Come to me, my children, in heaven, for Christ my son. God does not consider anyone righteous if there is nothing of His essential righteousness in him." (Epistolar I, 812; with Gieseler LI, 2, p. 109.)

righteous and pious Christians that they want to help themselves and cover themselves with the imputativa iustitia of the Antichrist and say that Christ's death, suffering, should make them righteous or saved, should be attributed from the outside. No, traun, it means to believe, that is, it means to be baptized into the same death; it means to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, Rom. 6, Jn. 6, to follow Christ and be conformed to him: so the death of Christ comes in them. TI. II, p. 15 (by Karl Hase, Ev. Dogmatik 3, p. 334): "An excellent error is in the false Christians, that they let another do the law, suffer, die.... The unio essentialis must do it so that we may have him in us spiritually and bodily. Where are you now with your imputativa? You will not be able to cover yourself with it before the wrath of God. Indue Christum [Put on Christ], go to the new man, Quakers etc. '48) also the Arminians, in so far as they let justifying faith also include obedience to the commandments of Christ.!48) The Synergists also abolish the actus forensis, because for them faith is not only the means of justification, but a "moral act", "self-establishment", "conduct", in short, a human achievement. The actus forensis is also denied by all newer theologians who reject the satisfactio vicaria Christi as too "juridical" and "declarative" and expressly assume the transformation or reorganization of the life of mankind into the reconciliation with God, and therefore the Roman fides caritate formata in substance. '*8 Since the Lutheran Church deals with Osiander's teaching in the third article of the Formula of Concord ("On the Righteousness of Faith before God") and more recent historians of dogma at least partly take Osiander's side, it is appropriate to go into Osiander's teaching in more detail when discussing the actus forensis. draw on the new man, and then you will be imputed by grace what Christ has done for you, otherwise you will remain eternally damned with your imputativa.

Engelder, Popular Symbolics, 261 ff. and 385 f.] W. Penn in Primitive Christianity Revived "It is too common a misfortune among the confessors of Christianity that they are inclined to cover their own active and suffering disobedience with the active and suffering obedience of Christ.

in himself can be formaliter more just by another's righteousness" (so that his righteousness consists in this), "just as a Moor cannot be white by another one’s whiteness.

Christ's finished work morally makes possible and guarantees the pardon of sinners forever; but it is at the same time an ongoing process insofar as the foundation of salvation, once accomplished, carries within itself the power to transform the life of humanity into its Godly form. What thus unfolds in history is for God's judgement interwoven into the salvation work accomplished, and this "his effective power" (namely the transformation of the life of mankind into its Godly form) "is one of the foundations of its value before God. This is the so-called "guarantee theory". Christ's life and suffering is not regarded before God as a complete payment of man's sinfulness, but as a guarantee fund for the betterment of mankind. Only through the human betterment "the once happened salvation foundation" actually receives its just and saving value. Osiander's doctrine has been judged far too favorably before, '**> but especially in more recent times. Osiander is an outstanding type of the enthusiasts of all times who, by removing the actus forensis, want to defend the justification of an externalization of Christianity, especially to save the inner certainty of salvation and sanctification, but eo ipso—namely, precisely by denying the actus forensic—make the certainty of salvation and sanctification impossible. Osiander also shares in the characteristic of all enthusiasts that they make the abuse of the Christian doctrine of grace by certain Christians a burden on this doctrine itself, thereby becoming slanderers and defamers of the Christian doctrine and its faithful preachers, and thus in their own person representing the opposite of the Christian sanctification which they supposedly want to save. '*8° Osiander was also very proud of his enthusiasm. '48) The fact that in more recent times one takes

Wirtemberg theologians "Declaration on Osiander's Disputation of Justification". Tiibingen 1553. with preface (and notes) Matt. Flacii Illyrici and Nic. Galli to the Prussian church. Magdeburg 1553. reprinted in Baumgarten, Streitigkeiten II, 259 ff., judgement is all the more striking as it states that Osiander misinterprets the expressions iustitia Dei and iustificari, Rom 1 and 3, namely the essential justice of God and its infusion into the faithful, which also endangers the comfort of Christians. Perhaps Brenz believed that he could settle the dispute by a mediating position. Chemnitz’ judgement is sharp but completely objective, printed in Schliistelburg, Catalogus VI, 94 sqq.

I, 926): "Such" (who understand by justification the forgiveness of sins) "preach not the righteousness of God, but they caress and pretend shamefully to the multitude so stained with sins that God will not nor shall not dwell in them, lest they should perceive that they are still farthest from the kingdom of God." In the preface to "Of the One Mediator etc.: "The hypocritical preachings that our righteousness is nothing but that God considers us righteous, whether we are bad boys or not, and that our righteousness is outside us and not in us; for in this teaching they may well be considered good, holy people. (Arnold I 927)

Incarnation of the Son of God, even apart from the Fall (p. 390 ff.), he said he had brought to light this great matter (rem tantam), which "no one has yet been properly explained by anyone after the apostles". "Luther had seen something of it, but did not seriously try to explain the matter in more detail. (To Filius Dei fuerit incarnandus etc. E e. Bei Gieseler, III, 2, p. 278.) In a letter to MGrlin, Osiander is so zealous against a commitment to the Augsburg sides with Osiander, divides right and wrong between him and the presentation of the Formula of Concord, and also calls Chemnitz’ judgment that Osiander is catholicizing erroneous, '***) comes from the fact that one, as a follower of "experiential theology," has essentially Osiander's blood in his veins. Like Osiander, the "experience theologians" of our time, too, want to prevent the externalization of Christianity or, as one puts it more modernly, the "intellectualism" that is attached to the old Lutheran theology. And they want to achieve this result by not basing their faith on the objective word of the Gospel, which promises forgiveness of sins or justification for the sake of Christ’s satisfactio vicaria, but by placing their faith on their own "experience", which experience is supposed to come about by "impressions" of the "person of Christ" outside and beside God's word. Just as Osiander warned against placing oneself on the outer Word of God, on the basis: "I distinguish an inner and outer Word and say of the outer one that it is a voice that disappears in the listener's ears; this cannot be called God's Word, for God's Word does not, therefore, vanish like the voice that stops there. Thus the "experience theologians" have this in common with Osiander and the enthusiasts of all times, that they accept a direct spiritual effect of Christ on the human spirit, which takes place outside the word of God. '4°° Thus justification by faith is in principle abandoned, because faith always takes place only vis-a-vis the Word of God offering justification. As apologia, in expounding the doctrine of justification, constantly reminds us of the axiom: Faith justifies because justification Confession: I want to show with God's help before the whole Christian Church, in all of Europe, that a different man is a learned man, a different doctor from Wittenberg, who has forgotten the Son of God and has sworn not to leave the Augsburg Confession, since all men are liars and Philip is not exempt from this. So remember that and remember it well. (By Arnold I, 929.)

355 ff. Schmid-Hauck, p. 366 p.

Christ, which is forced upon man by His appearance Himself. ". is only through the Word. '?) Now as far as Osiander's actual teaching is concerned, '*°) one must not be deceived by some orthodox expressions by which Osiander makes himself comfortable with his time and surroundings. Thus he speaks in strong terms of the satisfactio vicaria, in which Christ suffered and died for us as well as fulfilling the law" '*°*) But instead of continuing to say that we are justified before God through Christ's suffering and action, as Scripture explicitly says,'4"*) Osiander claims that through Christ's suffering and action we cannot be justified before God because it "has been done for 1500 years and more". Furthermore, Osiander speaks in many words of how Christ, through his fulfillment of the law, his suffering and death, has earned us perfect forgiveness of sins. But then he adds that we are not righteous before God by believing in the forgiveness of sins acquired by Christ. Rather, justification is carried out in such a way that Christ enters into our hearts by faith and, according to his divine nature, is our righteousness before God. Osiander says: "Certainly and clearly I answer that Jesus Christ is our righteousness before God according to his divine nature and not according to his human nature, even though we cannot find, attain or grasp this divine

proprie dicta, quae assentitur promissioni; de hac fide loquitur Scriptura. (Justification is done only by the word; 108, 113: Now there is faith properly so called, which consents to the promise; Scripture speaks of this faith.] [Trig/ 139, Apol, Art. IV [Il], 67; 155, ibid., 113] Cf. 96, 50. 53-56 [134, 50. 53-56].

deals with Osiander's teaching. The quotations from all Osiander's writings are almost too abundantly presented here.. — Baumgarten, Streitigkeiten II, 255 ff. — Of the newer ones, Frank, Theol. d. Konkordienf. U, Hist. Nachweis, p. 87 ff.

especially also in "Schmeckbier", 4.4; at Schliisselburg VI, 60.

blood); v. 19: 816 tig... baaKOT\¢ TOD Evdc Sikatol KaTACTAOOOVTaL Oi TOAAOI [by the obedience of one the many are made righteous ’] righteousness outside of his human nature. But if he himself dwells in us through faith, he brings his righteousness, which is his divine nature, into us (affert secum in nos), which is then attributed to us as if it were our own. "

(iustum efficere), what it means in truth and in fact. Here it becomes clear how Chemnitz could judge that Osiander was catholicizing. According to Roman doctrine, Christ has earned for us that God pours out righteousness, namely love and other virtues, and through this iustitia infusa we are justified before God. According to Osiander, we owe to the merit of Christ the infusion of his divine nature, and this divine nature poured out upon us shall be our righteousness before God.!*°° In practical application the difference that still exists disappears completely. Through Osiander's doctrine, man, who has come to the knowledge of his sins through the law, is instructed by God's gracious disposition towards him to judge against himself after the inner transformation which the essential divinity dwelling within him has brought about. In this way, the certainty of the forgiveness of sins, as in the case of the Romanists, really comes down to sanctification and good works."!4° Thus, the Formula of Concord was

agreement between the doctrine of Osiander and Roman doctrines is formulated as follows: Sic interpretantur propositionem: fide iustificamur, scil, praeparatione, ut simus deinde alia re iusti, id est, accepti coram Deo, scii, novitate seu dilectione seu inhaerente iustitia essentiali. [This is how they interpret the proposition: we are justified by faith, that is, by preparation, so that we may then be righteous in another respect, that is, accepted before God, knowledge, novelty or love, or inherent essential justice.] (Corp. Ref. IX, 365 sqq.)

"Since, according to Osiander's own concession, sin does not completely disappear in man even after Christ's inhabitation, man remains burdened with the constant uncertainty whether Christ's inhabitation is such that he may comfort himself on the basis of it, or he is tempted to underestimate the impurity still remaining in him. right to "declare itself against Osiander on all points under consideration".

the indwelling of Christ, she states that the whole Holy Trinity dwells by faith in the elect and urges them to good works. But she separates this indwelling and its sanctifying effect from the justice of faith by adding "Such indwelling of God is not the righteousness of faith, which St. Paul deals with and calls iustitiam Dei, that is, the righteousness of God, for which we are justified before God, but it follows (sequitur) the antecedent righteousness of faith. The justice of faith itself is "nothing other than the forgiveness of sins and the gracious acceptance of poor sinners, solely for Christ's obedience and merit". (622, 54 [Trigl., 935, Sol. Decl., III, 54]) The justice of faith is one acquired by Christ in his walk on earth, which requires both natures, divine and human. Hence the emphasis on the God-human person of Christ (622, 56-58) [Trigl. 935, 56, 58]: "We believe, teach and confess that all obedience to the whole person of Christ, which he rendered for. us to the Father even unto the most shameful death of the cross, is attributed to us for justice. For human nature alone, without the divine, the eternal, almighty, eternal and eternal. Melanchthon, Corp. Ref: VII, 1151, calls Osiander's teaching "enthusiasm that obscures the benefits of the Son of God and destroys true consolation. Frank also judges II, 19 of Osiander's doctrine: "It is a subjectivism that shatters the objective reason for salvation of the Lutheran Church to its depths, a Mysticism that transforms the Christ for us into the Christ in us and, against our will, makes the consciousness of the inhabitatio essentialis iustitiae the basis of peace with God.

means to speak of sins in a righteous and unmarried way and to count the same eternal punishment unmarried for the sake of the righteousness of Christ, which is attributed to faith by God. Also in the much discussed words of apology (100, 72 [Trigl. 141, Apol., Art. IV [II], 72]), where justification is also called righteousness or rebirth, the actus forensis is recorded. Apology expressly declares: Volumus hoc ostendere, quod sola fides ex iniusto iustum efficiat, hoc est, accipiat remissionem peccatorum. The Formula of Concord (613, 19. 20) [Trig]. 921, Sol. Decl., I, 19— 20] has correctly understood apology. In the same way, we must not sin for the whole world with obedience or suffering, but the Godhead alone, without humanity, between God and us, may not be a means (mediatoris partes implere).... In such a way, neither the divine nor the human nature of Christ is attributed to us for itself (per se) as justice, but only the obedience of the person who is God and man". Thus it is understood that "all our justice is outside our... and stands alone on the Lord Christ". "Such righteousness is promoted by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and in the sacraments, and is applied, appropriated and accepted by faith. '°°° Finally, the Formula of Concord does not forget to point out that only in this way can Christians be given the necessary consolation and the merit of Christ and the grace of God remain intact. It says (616:30 [Trigl. 925, 30]): "Boldly, and that sorrowful hearts may have a constant and certain consolation, that the merit of Christ and the grace of God may be given its due glory, Scripture teaches that the justice of faith before God consists solely in the merciful atonement or forgiveness of sins, which is given to us by grace alone for the sake of the united merit of the Mediator of Christ, and is received by faith alone in the promise of the Gospel". 1°)

that is not within man but outside of him: 624, 63 [937, 63]; 623, 58 [937, 58]; 622 54. 55 [935, 54-55].

announces itself as a rejection of the errors of Osiander and Stancarus (527, 2) [791, he dwells in us by faith" (Osiander). "Others, on the other hand, have held that Christ is our righteousness before God only according to human nature" (Stancarus). There is no reason to have more sympathy for Osiander than for Stankarus, no matter whether one looks at both doctrinal positions or at their personal conduct (their great vanity). (Gieseler III, 2, 274 ff. RE.2 XIV, 592.) Stancarus argued for his thesis with Unitarian, resp. Nestorian-Reformed reasons, which exclude the incarnation of the Son of God and a common work of the two natures at all (Schliisselburg, Cartal.. IX, 244; Baumgarten II, 268 ff: Since Christ could not die according to the divine nature, the divine nature was to be excluded from mediation). Osiander's teaching is based on the pantheistic speculation that it is inherent in the divine being to immerse itself in humanity. That is why Osiander claimed that the Son of God became man, even if men had not fallen. (So also in the writing of the year 1550: c. Justification is SOLA fide, "by faith alone". The "by faith alone" does not, of course, exclude God's grace, Christ's merit, and the means of grace To Filius Dei incarnandus, si peccatum non introivisset in mundum. Item, De Imagine Dei, quid sit. [For the Son of God to be incarnate, if sin had not entered the world. Also, On the Image of God, what it is.] Excerpts from Schliisselburg, VI, 47 sqq.) The "Adam speculation" and "the separation of the inner and outer word" do not find an "accessory" for Osiander's doctrine of justification, as Seeberg thinks (Dogmengesch. II, 360), but the other way round: everything Osiander says about Christ's merit etc. is only "accessory" for his speculation about the Incarnation of the Son of God, even if no sinners could have been saved by Christ's merit. One could, as Frank (Theol. d. F.C. I, 22 f.) rightly observes, remove Christ's satisfaction from Osiander's system without any substantial degeneration of the whole. — One has asked about Luther's judgement on Osiander. Even if we, as not universally accredited, let it rest on our laurels whether Luther had expressed disapproval of Osiander's sermons on justification in 1529 at Marburg and 1537 at Schmalkalden, we know from Luther's letter to Wenzeslaus Link (of Oct. 8, 1533; StL. XXIb 1854; de Wette IV, 485) that Luther was very concerned about Osiander's doctrinal position and character. He writes: "I would not have believed that that man (Osiander) was so caught up in so many thoughts (occupatum) and so far removed from our pure teaching, as I notice from his letter. But Luther at that time regarded Osiander as a sick man (velut aegrotum) who still wanted to be "freed and healed" by right treatment. The matter was this:, which were common in Nuremberg. This indicated that Osiander did not believe in an objective reconciliation and an objective gospel, and therefore Luther's teaching in the Nuremberg Absolution Controversy was: "The gospel itself is a general absolution, for it is a promise which all and every one of us must accept in particular by God's command and commandment. (Letter to the Council of Nuremberg. Sz. L. XXI b, 1847 ff.) In more recent times it has become customary to assume at least a partial agreement between Osiander and Luther. Osiander is said to have represented "original Lutheran ideas" in opposition to the Melanchthonianism of the Formula of Concord (Seeberg, 1. c., 360 f.). In fact, the agreement between Osiander and Luther exists only in certain expressions, which, however, are taken by both sides in different senses. In fact, there is not even a similarity between Osiander and Luther, since Luther's entire doctrine of justification is based on Christ’s iustitia extra nos, while Osiander declares all those to be false teachers and unworthy of the name of a theologian who do not place the righteousness of the Christian in the Christ in nobis, namely in the indwelling of his divine nature, (Disp. de iustif, thes. 69.73. 74.) Luther on the other hand (Opp. v. a. IV, 391; St. L. XIX, 1452): Certum est Christum seu iustitiam Christi, cum sit extra nos et aliena nobis, non posse nostris operibus comprehendi, sed fides, quae ex auditu Christi nobis per Spiritum Sanctum infunditur, ipsa comprehendit Christum. [Google Translate: It is certain that Christ, or the righteousness of Christ, since he is outside us and alien to us, cannot be comprehended by our works, but faith, which is infused into us from hearing Christ by the Holy Spirit, itself comprehends Christ.] from justification, as the Romans sophistically interjected. On the contrary, the factors mentioned above are the prerequisite for the "by faith alone". Because by grace, for Christ's sake, we are justified by the Gospel, therefore by faith alone and not by works. The Lutheran shibboleth sola fide has only the sense and purpose of holding on to faith as the only means of appropriation (medium AnmtuK6v) on the part of man, and of separating the works of man as means of appropriation from justification, as Scripture so powerfully does when it says: miote1 — ovk s& épywv [faith — not by works], Rom. 3:28; &« miotems Xpiotov Kai ovK é& Epy@v vopLov Rom. 4:5.

of Concord says that nothing in and about man, whether it precedes faith, like repentance, or follows faith, like the righteousness of the works that has begun, should be made the medium or instrument (medium et instrumentum) of justification.!°°) — He who denies sola fide denies also the fide, because in justification Scripture opposes fides to works: niotet — yapics épyov vopov (Rom. 3:28), TH dé EpyaCopéva MiotEvovtt 6& Emi TOV SUKALODVTA TOV GoEsBt AoyiCetat 1 Mictic adtOD sic StKa1o0bvyv. '° In still other words, according to Scripture, in justification faith and works are not to be added,

seu, quod idem est, gratuito Dei favori, iustiflcationis causae efficienti principali, 2. non merito Christi, causae eiusdem meritoriae, nec 3. verbo et sacramentis, quae instrumentales iustiflcationis nostrae a parte Dei offerentis et dantis sunt, sed nostris operibus. [Google

must precede", and those justified by faith "are also given the Holy Spirit, who renews and sanctifies them, in them works love against God and neighbor.... But here, if the article is to remain pure from justification, good care must be taken that what goes before faith and what follows it is not at the same time mixed or inserted into the article of justification as necessary and proper to it. pp. 616, 31 [Trigl. 925, 31]: "It is not repentance or love or any other virtue, but faith alone is the means or instrument so that and through it we can receive and accept God's grace, Christ's merit and the forgiveness of sins, if they are recited to us in the promise of the Gospel. Cf. 618, 38. 39. [929, ibid., 38—39]

opposites with Paul. but works must be subtracted. Bengel, in Rom. 3:28, illustrates this arithmetically: "Two things are possible: Faith and Works..............000065 The works are excluded so faith alone remain................. 1 One subtracted from two, leaves one."!>°) Recently J. F. Loughlin wrote:!°° "By leaving out

In quaestionem veniunt duo: FideS Ct OPCTO...eccecccccecsecsesceeeeeeeeee 2 EXCIUCUNIUL OPCTG....ececceceeceeeeceeeeeees 1 Superest fides SOl.....cccccsereeeee 1 Uno de duobus subtracto remanet unum.

202: "On Translating, An Open Letter" — see also here for another English translation, search "For you and our people"). The apology about the sola fide 100, 73 (Ed. - Trigl. 141, Art. IV [Il], 73; BookOfConcord here, #69-74, esp. #73) Luthardt Dogmatik, p. 303: "If Luther added Rom. 3:28 'alone' (also defended by Erasmus), this is fully justified by the exclusion of the other only conceivable possibility, which is €pya vopov.". Thomasius, Dogm. III, 2, 210: "The sola fide is not only stated literally Gal. 2:16: edv pi 616 miotews and confirmed by the more detailed provisions mentioned above, but also testified by the whole context of both the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Romans. Luther, in defense of his translation, attaches the appropriate predicates to the Romans, who called his translation a falsification of Scripture on sola fide in the Fathers of the Church and the Romans: L. u. W. 1916, pp. 548 f. — Luther on Gal. 5:6: Non dicit Paulus: Fides, quae per caritatem iustificat, nec dicit: Fides, quae per caritatem gratum facit. Talem textum ipsi [the Roman] fingunt et huic loco per vim intrudunt. Multo minus dicit: Caritas gratum facit. Sed dicit: Fides, quae per caritatem operativ. Opera fieri dicit ex fide per caritatem, non iustificari hominem per caritatem. At quis est tam rudis grammaticus, qui non ex vocabulorum virtute intelligat, aliud esse iustificari, aliud operari? [Google Translate] (Ad Gal. Erl. IT, 322; St. L. XX, 633 f.) — Luther on Rom. 1:17: 0 dixatoc ex nioteas Chostau: Spiritus Sanctus, qui dat omnibus os et linguam, novit etiam loqui. Bene potuisset dicere, ut Sophistae impie nugantur: Iustus ex fide (caritate) formata vivit. With consulto omisit hoc et simpliciter dixit: Iustus ex fide.vivit. Abeant igitur Sophistae in malam crucem cum sua impia et pestilente glossa! [The just shall five by faith: The Holy Ghost, who gives to all men both mouth and tongue, knows how to speak. He could have said (as the sophists wickedly imagine): The righteous man shall live by the faith which is formed by love. But this He omitted purposely and saith plainly: ‘The just shall live by faith.’ A plague upon these sophists with their wicked and pestilent gloss!] (L. c. If, 3 sq. St. L. 1X, 359.)

Confessions of’, pp. 760 ff.] the obnoxious sola (alone) the article" (the fourth article of Augustana is meant) "might be glossed in Catholic sense. Also Eck in the 16th century. Melanchthon reported 1530 from Augsburg to Luther about Eck: "As far as the doctrine is concerned, it is written: Eck finds fault with the word sola when we say that man is justified by faith alone. But he did not condemn the teaching in itself but said that the inexperienced were offended. For I have compelled him to confess that righteousness is rightly appropriated by us to faith"!>°®) Luther replied: "You write that Eck was compelled by you to confess that we are justified by faith; O that you compelled him not to lie!

beside faith and said in return that man would be justified "by grace and faith", he wanted to gain space by this to understand by "grace" not the gracious disposition of God but the "poured out grace", that is, good works. The expression "by grace and faith" gained the meaning for Eck: "by good works and faith" man becomes righteous before God. The sola neben fide, on the other hand, excludes gratia infusa, the works, and forces us to understand "grace" in justification as the gracious disposition of God (favorem Dei propter Christum) or the forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ. '!° Melanchthon also noticed Eck's deception when he added in his letter to Luther: "But the fool"—namely Eck—"does not understand the word grace. Gerhard says with reference to the usefulness of the expression "py faith alone": "Through the particle sola the deceitfulness of the opponents is discovered, which is why they persecute them with such great hatred." >!» But here again we must remember the fact that, after all, no expression, not even the sola fide, is safe from abuse. Hase points out that even rationalists claim without any conscience that their moral and

Il, 5.

deteguntur, inde etiam tanto eam persequuntur odio, ut nos Fidesolarios propter eius usum appellant. [By a single particle the plots of the adversaries are discovered, and they pursue it with such hatred that they call us Fidesolarios because of its use.] virtue doctrine is expressed through sola fide. °! Also the synergists of old and new times have not renounced the use of sola fide, although in their version of faith as moral deed, right conduct, self- determination, etc., they bring faith itself under the category of human achievement and so do not hold to fide and therefore not to sola fide in the scriptural sense. Even the newer "experience theologians" still use the sola fide, although they have abandoned all its preconditions, the satisfactio vicaria and the iustificatio per verbum evangelii. '>'>) d. Nor is the presence of good works necessary for justification. (Neque praesentia operum ad iustificationem requiritur.) Of course, faith always has the good works with it. This truth must also always be inculcated when it is a matter of warning against carnal security or an imaginary faith (fides acquisita), as 2 Cor. 13:5: "Try yourselves whether you are in faith; test yourselves!. Even if one admits that the inventors of the expression meant well, namely, to warn against an imaginary faith,. If, as Scripture teaches, the works are not considered at all in justification, because justification is completely independent of the works, then the presence of the works is not necessary for justification either. The one who demands the presence of works for justification, if he knows what he is saying, eo ipso gives praise to the scriptures that justification is done without the works of the law. And in practical application, the wrong expression can only lead to doubt about the divine forgiveness of sins,

less Christian" (!) "determination the statement that faith alone makes saved and works come from faith. One understood then under sola fides 'the internal in the opposites of the external’: sola vera fide, i. e., animo ad Christi. exemplum eiusdemque praecepta composito et ad Deum converso.

modern theology: (IX, 197.) which is highly available through Christ and is presented in the gospel. Nor is the situation improved by distinguishing between the merit and the presence of good works, saying that it is not the merit of good works but only their presence that is necessary for justification. For even with this distinction the frightened sinner does not dare to seize in faith the forgiveness of sins acquired by Christ and offered in the Gospel but will look for the supposedly necessary presence of good works. In short, justification is practically transferred to the field of the law by the saying that the resence of works is necessary for justification.

dogmatists say correctly: Fides nunquam est sola, sed iustificat sola. [Faith is never alone, but justifies alone.’] e. Justification has no degrees. (Justificatio non admittititit gradus, non fit successive, non recipit magis et minus.) Justification has no degrees and cannot have degrees, but is complete where it is, because it consists in the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 4:7 f.), which Christ has fully acquired and promises in the Gospel (Luke 24:47). Whoever therefore believes the gospel has all the justification for it. Therefore believers confess: yaptotpEevoc NLiv navto Te Tapartmpata,'>!>) and: Auco1wévtes odv &K Tictews EipyvnV éyouev mpdc Tov @eodv. 5! Luther expresses this in such a way that justification by faith is not "piecemeal" but "in one heap". He says, "Justification comes not by works, but by faith alone, without all works, not in pieces, but in a heap. For the testament has all things in it, justification, salvation, inheritance, and entire heritage. It becomes all at once, not in pieces, possessed by faith."!5!7)

the part of God that happened to the believers when they became believers; the objective act of atonement through the death of Christ had preceded and is described inv. 14.

with faith is not a partial but a complete one.

545, Sm. Cat., Pt. II, Art. Ill, 6]; 480, 100 [725, L. Cat., Pt. IM, 100]; 324 f. [498, Smale. Art., Pt. Ill, X Il]; 614, 22. [923, F.C., Sol. Decl., II, 22] There are degrees in faith. But the weak faith justifies as completely as the strong. Luther, XI, 1840: "Therefore we are all equal in Christ by faith. Although St. Peter has a stronger faith than I do, it is the same faith in Christ. For the same Christ is given by his Father, asking them to lay hold of Him; whoever gets him, has him whole, gets him strong or weak, there is no matter. Whoever assumes degrees of justification with Rome or speaks of a multiplication of justification,

mandatorum Dei et ecclesiae in ipsa iustitia per Christi gratiam accepta, cooperante fide bonis operibus, crescunt atque magis iustificantur, Evening table, can. 24: Si quis dixerit, iustitiam acceptam - non augeri coram Deo per bona opera - anathema sit. According to Roman doctrine, justification is a process that extends throughout life and beyond into purgatory. Faith is only the beginning or the root of justification (sess. 6, c. 8). It belongs with a whole series of acts in preparation for justification. The Roman doctrine of justification presents itself, according to the Tridentinum, as follows: Justification requires preparation (praeparatio, dispositio). To this preparation belong according to sess. 6, c. 6, the following parts: 1. Faith, not faith, of course, which believes in the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake—faith would be presumptuous (op. cit, c. 9)—but the historical faith which believes what God has revealed; 2. the fear of God's wrath because of sins; 3. the hope that God will be merciful, namely later, after the completion of a long series of acts; 4. The beginning of love for God; 5. Repentance, which is necessary before baptism and includes "some hate" (odium aliquod) for sin; 6. Intention to receive baptism; 7. Intention to keep the commandments of God. This "preparation" is followed by (op. cit, c. 7) "Justification itself", which, however, must not be understood merely as forgiveness of sins, but also includes sanctification (dispositionem seu praeparationem iustificatio ipsa consequitur, quae non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis [justification itself results from the disposition or preparation, which is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner man), so that even justification itself does not consist in a declaration of justice, but in an of an unjust person into a just person (non modo reputamur, sed vere iusti nominamur et sumus, iustitiam in nos recipientes). Everything, both the praeparatio and the iustificatio ipsa, is done with human participation (secundum propriam cuiusque dispositionem et cooperationem). But even if someone has undergone "justification itself", he must not surely think that God has mercy on him, cum nullus scire valeat certitudine fidei, cui non potest subesse falsum, se gratiam Dei esse consecutum (op. cit., c. 9). The conclusion comes only in purgatory. The anathema should strike the one who dares to say that "after justification has been received" there is not a debt of temporal punishment left to be paid either in this world or in Purgatory. (Sess. 6, can. 30.) On the thus shows that he does not teach justification by faith in Christ but by an inherent righteousness (iustitia infusa sive inhaerens), i.e. he has given up the Christian doctrine of justification. For a gradual justification not only the Roman Catholics but also Protestants (Hengstenberg) erroneously referred to Luke 7:36 ff. as is to be explained in more detail in the section Justification on the Basis of Works". f. The forgiveness of sins means the whole justification, not just a part of it. When apology says (100:76): "Consequi remissionem peccatorum est iustificari", and" the Formula of Concord (528:7): "The word ‘justify’ in this article means to absolve, that is, to speak of sins alone", and even more so (616:30).If we say that "the righteousness of faith consists solely in the merciful reconciliation or forgiveness of sins", this is entirely in accordance with Scripture, because Paul Romans 4:6-8 for "justify" forgives sin and does not attribute sin, thus designating all justification. It is not a recommendable teaching method if some Lutheran teachers wanted to divide justification into two acts, namely the attribution of Christ's merit and the forgiveness of sins, or vice versa, the forgiveness of sins and the attribution of Christ's merit.!!°) Roman iustificatio prima and secunda, which coincides approximately with the praeparatio and iustificatio ipsa, see Chemnitz, Examen, De iustif. p. 152 sq. The Roman doctrine of justification can be briefly summarized as follows: Christ has earned us so much that we can earn our own salvation, initially de congruo, then also de condigno. The Augsburg Interim (1548) also revealed the apostasy from Christian doctrine through the inclusion of gradual justification. (Gieseler III, 1, 347.) It was also taught by Andreas Osiander, (Disp. de justificatione, thes. 79: by faith de die in diem magis unimur, namely with the divine nature of the Son of God). The gradual justification (minus purgatory) is also taught by all newer theologians who see faith in justification as the "seed" or "beginning" of a following moral development (like Martensen, Dogmatik, p. 368) or who include "the transformation of the life of mankind" in the subjective reconciliation (like all representatives of the "guarantee theory"; Kirn, Dogmatik, p. 118).

Syst. II, 1237 sqq. Quenstedt (II, 753) endeavors to establish unity: " The imputation of Christ's merit is in substance the forgiveness of sins, and the forgiveness is the imputation of Christ's righteousness, Luther is speaking entirely in accordance with Scripture when he repeatedly says: For Christians, righteousness or piety before God means "forgiveness so that each expression, taken by itself, can express the whole essence of justification. This is also why the Apostle Paul, Rom. 4, interchanged "forgiving sin" and "tmputing righteousness" in the description of justification, but did not present them as parts that make up a whole. Romanists, Unitarians, enthusiasts and newer theologians have denied that one can speak of an imputation of the righteousness of Christ. They want to admit that, according to Scripture, faith is counted as righteousness, whereby the Romans understand faith as fides caritate formata, the Socinians call obedience to the commandments of Christ faith, and the enthusiasts and newer theologians think of faith in so far as faith conveys the indwelling of Christ or represents the seed of sanctification. But Scripture does not teach that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinner in such a way that the sinner is righteous before God through Christ's righteousness. That those mentioned here are mistaken is clearly shown by scriptural statements such as Romans 5:19: 610 tij¢ MAPAKOTIS TOD EVs (but v. 18: dt EVds SuKAMLATOS) SikaLOL KATAOTAINOOVTAL OL moAAot. [By the obedience of One (v. 18: By the righteousness of One) shall many be made righteous. Also 1 Joh. 2:1 the effectiveness of the intercession of Christ in the case of the sinning of Christians is justified by the fact that the intercession of Jesus Christ is dixatoc "the Righteous ", that is, it is covered by his righteousness. — Holtzmann (II, 140) takes a different position. He says: even if the imputation of Christ's righteousness is not "directly provable", it is "touched upon" in Rom. 5:17-19. But at this point one should keep in mind the parallel between Adam and Christ. Just as Adam's sin was passed on by imputation to "the many" in such a way that "the many were presented as sinners through Adam's sin" (apapt@aot KaTEosatHoav), so too Christ's righteousness passes on by imputation from "the many" in such a way that the many are presented as righteous through Christ's righteousness (dikatot KataotaOjoovtat [Rom. 5:19 — be made righteous]). Thus, the imputation of Christ's righteousness is not just "touched upon", but directly stated. — As far as the duxatoobvy Yeot, Rom 1:17 etc., are concerned, it is questionable whether the expression "the righteousness before God", that is, the righteousness that is considered righteousness before God, or "the righteousness of God", that is, the righteousness that comes from God and is given by God. The former is the version of Luther in translation. With Luther are the recent theologians Fritzsche, K6llner, Umbreit, Philippi, I. Wei8, Stéckhardt. They call themselves from Rom. 3:20: duca1HbjosetatEveomiov Veov [justified in His sight]; Gal. 3:11: ovdeic dukarobtar napa tp Ye@ [Justified in the sight of God (mapa)]; Rom. 2:13: dikaormapa to OE@. The latter version is represented by Winer, Meyer and perhaps the majority of the modern ones. They refer to Rom. 3:24: ducatobpevor d@pedv tH_avdtov yaputt [being justified freely by His grace] and especially of Phil. 3:9: tiv_ek Yeob Sukatoobvnv (the righteousness which is of God.]. However, in the latter passage the ex Seov is caused by the contrast pp ex@v Eunv Stkatoovvny [not having mine own righteousness] as Philippi notes. If one adds 2 Cor. 5:21: tva nusic yevopeda ducatoovbvn Osod, one will decide for the version of Luther. The thought: "that we might become the righteousness that comes from God" is further away than the thought: "that we might become the righteousness that is before God". Linguistically or out of context, of sins."!°?° Christ's merit is fully appreciated, namely as a prerequisite for the forgiveness of sins. For to the question why God forgives us sin or justifies us, the answer of Scripture is: 61 tg GOAVTPMOEWS TIS EV Xploto Inoov unb: 6 evdc (namely Christ) ducatmpatos, 516 THs vraKor(s TOV EVOc. '521) Hence also the Formula of Concord, where it arranges the terms precisely (616, 30) [Trigl. 925, Sol. Decl., III, 30]), says: "In order... that due honor be given to the merit of Christ and the grace of God, the Scriptures teach that the righteousness of faith before God consists alone in the gracious [gratuitous] reconciliation or the forgiveness of sins, which is presented to us out of pure grace, for the sake of the only merit of the Mediator, Christ, and is received through faith alone in the promise of the Gospel". °°?) The various names of the object of faith need not be misused to divide the object in a way that is contrary to Scripture. It is quite clear that this is the case: Whatever the object of justifying faith may be called, whether Christ (Rom. 3:22) or God (Rom. 4:3) or Christ's righteousness (Rom. 6:18; 1 John 2:1) or Christ's blood and death (1 Cor. 2:2; Rom. 6:9) or Christ's raising from the dead (Rom. 10:9; 4:24) or Christ's name (1 John 6:13) or God's testimony both versions are possible because of the ambiguity of the Greek genitive. Both versions also express scriptural ideas, as is evident from the scriptural passages cited. For Luther's version I. Wei8 still refers to the genitives 2 Cor. 1:12, Gal. 6:16, Col. 2:19. Cf. Holtzmann, II, 140. Any interpretation of dixatoobvn Sov in the direction of iustitia inhabitans or infusa is excluded by the added ek niotems sic niotw because the ex miotews stands in exclusive opposition to €€ €pywv and only the faith that has as its object tov duca1ow ta tov_aceBr, Rom. 4:5. The sic ziotw next to the ex mioteas, 1:17, is 3:22 more closely defined by sic mavtac Kai exi Mavtac MAVvTAs TOG Mlotevovtac. Since duxatoobvn -YEov includes the fact that it is ex miotews and not & épyov, it does not come from the works of the doers (epyaCopévovc), but from the believers (motevovtac).

of terms when it says: "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". of his son (1 Joh. 5:10) or the gospel (Rom. 1:16) etc.: it always refers to Christ, inasmuch as He has obtained forgiveness of sins through His vicarious satisfaction, God, inasmuch as He is gracious to people for Christ's sake, the gospel, inasmuch as it is 10 evayyéAtov Tic YapItos Tod Weod [the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24), tic eiprvng (Eph. 6:15), in short, it always refers to the gracious forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake. The Augsburg Confession says with regard to the object of faith that true faith believes not only "history", that Christ suffered and rose again, but also "effectum historiae", the effect or fruit of history, "namely this article: the forgiveness of sins. 7?) And Luther reminds us that we can only pray properly for the second article of the Apostles Creed if we add "for me", namely: for the forgiveness of sins. After all, the Gospel, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are means of grace only in that they offer and give forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake primo loco. '>*" It is necessary here to draw attention to a deviation from Scripture and confession that is found among some Lutheran theologians. While Scripture and Confessions promiscue and synonymously use the expressions Christ, Christ's righteousness, Christ's obedience, Christ's suffering, Christ's merit, forgiveness, justification, etc. in describing the object of justifying faith,**> later theologians in particular wanted to distinguish between Christ's merit as the "thing that justifies" (bonum iustificum, res iustifica) and justification or forgiveness of sins itself,

do not speak here of the faith which even the devils and the ungodly have, who also believe in history that Christ suffered and was raised from the dead, but we speak of the true faith which believes that through Christ we have grace and forgiveness of sins" (Latin text: quae credit etiam effectum historiae, videlicet hunc articulum, remissionem peccatorum).

grace and Christ's merit 618, 38 [929, ibid., 38], God's grace in Christ 619, 41 [929, ibid., 41], the grace of God through Christ 105, 100 [151, Apol., Art. IV [II], 100], the promised mercy 96, 55-56 [137, ibid., 55 f], the forgiveness of sins 616, 30 [925, F. C., Sol. Decl., HI, 30]; 100, 72 [141, Apol., Art. IV [II], 72]; 97, 57 [137, ibid. 57]; 102, 84 [145, ibid., 84]; 94, 45 [133, ibid., 45]: credit unusquisque sibi remitti peccata propter Christum, the forgiveness of sins and justification 102, 84. [145, ibid., 84]. and let only Christ or Christ's merit (the bonum iustificum), but not the forgiveness of sins or justification itself (ipsam remissionem peccatorum, ipsam iustificationem) be the object of faith. © This was the main point that Walther had in mind when he spoke of a "clouding" of the doctrine of justification among later Lutheran teachers.!°? If this distinction between bonum iustificum and iustificatio were really made, which fortunately does not happen consistently, the practical consequence would be that the forgiveness of sins or justification could not be believed directly on the basis of the promise of grace in the objective means of grace, but could in any case only be recognized by a conclusion from the fact of faith or by reflection on the existence of faith. '°?8) In other words: When the sinner is struck by the law of God, the question: "Does God forgive me my sins?" should not be taken out of the forgiveness of sins pronounced in the Gospel, but should first be encouraged to self-examine whether he already has faith in the "bonum iustificum". Thus faith would come, insofar as it justified not to stand on the objective promise of grace in the means of grace but on itself. The correct axiom that the fides directa suffices for justification and the fides reflexa is not necessary would be abandoned. '*?) In order to ward off this aberration, Walther gave his

iustificationem, sed iustitiam Christi per fidem nobis applicari. And before: In propriis locutionibus non dicimus, iustificationem apprehendi per fidem, sed dicimus, Christum et in Christo Dei misericordiam, remissionem peccatorum, iustitiam et vitam aeternam apprehendi per fidem et hoc modo fieri iustificationem. [See English ed. II, p. 540, n. 71: We do not say that justification, but Christ’s righteousness is applied by faith to us. And: Strictly speaking, we do not say that justification is to be apprehended by faith, but we say that Christ, and in Christ God’s compassion, remission of sins, righteousness and life eternal are to be apprehended by faith and that thus justification takes place. ]

very carefully distinguish the question of the certainty of the truth and reality of our faith from the question of the certainty of the justification by faith; for as soon as one entered the first question one would enter the subjective field, the nature, constitution, etc. of true faith, and thus justification would become uncertain, because nothing of our own, nothing subjective, can constitute our righteousness before God..

edition of Baier's Compendium, under the Locus de iustificatione, a long series of quotations referring to the means of grace as causa media of justification on the part of God and to the "general justification that has already taken place" as the basis of justification by faith. °° Against the theologians, who do not let the objective justification be the object of justifying faith, is directed the quote by Carpzov (Baier HI, 286), in which Carpzov shows that not the forgiveness of sins appropriated by faith, but the objective forgiveness of sins acquired by Christ and offered for appropriation in the means of grace is the object of faith, insofar as it justifies. 1°) without being able to convict and reject him, the pastor must not try to help his conscience by adding all kinds of conditions or warnings and threats to the formula of absolution. Christian Chemnitz rightly wrote against Paul Tarnov, who had advocated the conditional absolution formula, that then baptism and the Lord's Supper would also have to be granted conditionally and the certainty of the forgiveness of sins would be based on the repentance and faith of the confessor instead of on the objective promise of grace for the sake of Christ's merit. Cf. L. u. W. 1876, p. 193 ff.: "Is absolution to be spoken categorically or hypothetically?

forgiveness of sins is considered in two ways: first, as it is acquired by Christ and offered in word and sacrament as a good promised by God and intended for sinners to seek and have (quaerendum et habendum offertur), but then, as it [the forgiveness of sins] is already accepted (accepta) and is appropriated and possessed by faith.... In the former relationship, the forgiveness of sins is the object of justifying faith in so far as it justifies (quatenus iustificat), and it seizes that forgiveness as a benefit acquired by Christ and offered to us in the Gospel as a good destined for our salvation. In the latter respect, the forgiveness of sins is also the object of justifying faith, not in so far as it justifies, but in so far as it deals with and delights in a good object, the forgiveness of sins already received, and enjoys it. If therefore in the 4th article of the Augsburg Confession and in the Apology the forgiveness of sins is more often stated as