7. The necessity (necessitas) of sanctification and good works.
The necessity of sanctification and good works has caused much discussion. Partly there were word disputes because the words "necessary" and "free" are ambiguous. This is also indicated by the Formula of Concord (625, 4 [Trigl. 939, Sol. Decl., IV, 4 🔗]): "Such a dispute arose at first over the words necessitas and libertas, that is, 'necessary' and 'free,' because especially the word necessitas, necessary, means not only the eternal, unchanging order according to which all men owe and are obliged to obey God, but also at times a compulsion, so that the law urges people to good works." However, it was not uncommon for differences of opinion to arise during the discussion. The Formula of Concord (625, 5 [Trigl. 939, ibid., 5 🔗]) also draws attention to this: "Afterwards, not only were the words disputed, but [also] the doctrine itself was most vehemently contested and disputed, that the new obedience in the born-again was not necessary because of the order above." To the errors and careless ways of speaking that had become vocal with regard to this point also within the Lutheran church,61) is the opposition of the fourth article
61) Leipzig Interim (Melanchthon, etc.): "Now as this true knowledge" (of God and Christ) "must shine in us, so it is certainly true that these virtues: Faith, love, and hope, and others, must be in us and be necessary to salvation." (Gieseler III, 1, p. 364.) — George Major: "But this I confess, that I have taught before and still teach, and will teach all my life, that 'good works' are necessary for salvation, and I say publicly and with clear and distinct words, that no one will be saved by evil works, and that no one will be saved without 'good works', and I say more, that whoever teaches otherwise, even an angel from heaven, is accursed." (To the venerable Niklas v. Amsdorf's writing, G. Major's reply. Wittenb. 1552, e. I. In Gieseler III, 2,. p. 213 f.) The same says a year later, 1553 (in the Sermon of St. Paul's Conversion, Preface), that good works are necessary, not to attain salvation, but "to keep it and not to lose it again". (Gieseler III, 2, p. 214.) Likewise, since 1554, Justus Menius (Salig III, 46; Frank II, 223). Cf. on the Majorist disputes Salig I, 628 ff. 637 ff.; Schlüsselburg, Catalogus, vol. VII; Walch, Streitigk. innerhalb etc. I, 98 ff; Arnold I, 939 ff; Walch,
23 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 21]
of the Formula of Concord. The doctrine of Scripture can be summarized thus:
First, sanctification and good works are not necessary for salvation. This is Scriptural teaching, because Scripture grants to faith from the first moment of its existence not only the forgiveness of sins, but also salvation without works of the law, that is, quite apart from sanctification and good works. The Scriptural evidence of the Formula of Concord is quite sufficient. It refers (531, 7 [Trigl. 799, Epit, IV, 7 🔗]) to the scriptural passages Rom. 4:6; Eph. 2:8: "We believe, teach, and confess that good works, both when salvation is in question, and in the article of justification before God, are to be wholly excluded, as the apostle testifies in clear words, when he thus wrote: 'According to which also David saith, that salvation is of man only, to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they to whom their unrighteousness is not imputed. And again, 'By grace are ye saved; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast,' Eph. 2." Scriptural doctrine is what Luther expresses thus, "Where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation." The improved Majorism, according to which good works are not necessary to obtain salvation, but are necessary to preserve it,62) is also contrary to Scripture. It is also refuted by the statements of Scripture, in which the possession of salvation is attributed to faith from the very beginning. If it were assumed that works take care of the preservation of salvation, then, as the Formula of Concord reminds us, the strange situation would arise "that faith alone takes hold of righteousness and salvation in the beginning, and afterwards hands over its office to works, so that the latter must in turn preserve faith, the righteousness and salvation it has received". (631, 34. [Trigl. 949, Sol. Decl., IV, 34 🔗])
This would result in a dismissal of faith as the means of attaining blessedness. In contrast, the Formula of Concord points out that according to Scripture not only the beginning, but also the continuance of the
Bibliotheca Theol. II, 617 sqq.; Frank, Theol. der F. C. II, 216 ff.; Thomasius, Bekenntnis etc., p. 99 ff., reprinted almost verbatim in Thomasius, Dogmengesch.2 II, 472 ff,; Seeberg, Dogmengesch. II, 352 ff; K. Thieme sub Gute Werke" in RE. 3 XXI, 110 ff, especially 120 ff.
62) Note 61.
24 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 21-22]
state of grace is imparted by faith alone: "Paul gives to faith not only the entrance into grace, but also that we stand in grace and boast of the glory to come, that is, the beginning, the means and the end he gives to faith alone. Again Rom. 11: 'They are broken because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith'; Col. 1:22: 'He will present you holy and blameless before Himself, if you continue otherwise in faith'; 1 Pet. 1: 5, 9: 'We are saved by the power of God through faith unto salvation'; Again: 'You will bring away the end of your faith, even the salvation of souls.'" In short, it directly contradicts Scripture when Major, Menius, and others addressed the necessity of good works, either to obtain or to preserve salvation.
But, when Major and his followers spoke of the necessity of good works, whether for the attainment or preservation of blessedness, they actually meant that good works were necessary for the preservation of faith. And this leads us to the real evil source of Majorism. It is semi-pelagianism or synergism.63) For if the synergistic assertion is true that conversion or the origin of faith is dependent on right human conduct or on the cessation of evil conduct, it is only consistent to make the preservation of faith also dependent on human good works or the cessation of evil works. It has been rightly pointed out, both in ancient and modern times, that George Major was by no means the inventor of the way of speaking that gave rise to the so-called Majorist controversy, namely, the way of speaking that good works are necessary for salvation. The later Melanchthon, under the influence of his synergism, had already established and defended the proposition of the necessity of good works for salvation in 1536 and earlier.64) Through Luther's energetic intervention
63) This was rightly pointed out by Major's opponents. (Salig, I. 640.)
64) Frank refers (2, 151) to Melanchthon's Loci of 1535. One reads after Disputatio Philippi Melanchthon with Dr. Martin Luther, held alone over the article of justification, Anno 1536. (Erl. A. 58, 339 ff.) Philippus: Is this passage true: The righteousness of works is necessary for salvation? Latin (p. 353): Philip: Utrum haec praepositio sit vera: Iustitia operum est necessaria ad salutem?
25 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 22-23]
Melanchthon was moved to drop his sentence.65) That Melanchthon was not cured of his error is evident not only from later statements and writings, but also from the fact that in the Leipzig Interim the words are found: "that these virtues: Faith, love and hope and others, must be in us and be necessary for salvation."66) The synergistic character of Majorism is still particularly evident in a conclusion that characterizes synergism to this day. This is the conclusion: if it must be admitted that man can hinder and destroy God's work by doing evil, it must also be admitted that man can promote the origin and preservation of faith by cessation of evil or by doing good works. Thus we see that in our time, for example, Luthardt thinks that by calling on Matt. 23:37: "Ye have not willed" to have led a scriptural proof for the cooperation of man in conversion.67) That in Major's thoughts the same paralogism caused the confusion is evident precisely from the statement in which he stoops to cursing all those who do not want to accept his proposition of the necessity of good works for salvation. He justifies his proposition with the fact that "no one will be saved by evil works". Major thus had in mind the thought connection: Just as evil works cause the loss of salvation, because of faith, so, in order for the mathematical example to be correct, it must also be said that good works are necessary for the preservation of faith and thus of salvation. In this false conclusion, too, Melanchthon had already gone ahead in the edition of the Loci of 1543. Frank: "Among the causes, namely, for the sake of which good works are to be done, the necessitas retinendae fidei is mentioned here, quia Spiritus Sanctus expellitur et perturbatur, cum admittuntur peccata contra conscientiam [Google]." 68) Therefore, it is necessary to clearly recognize the relationship between evil works, on the one hand,
65) Cf. Thomasius, Das Bekenntnis der ev.-luth. K. etc., p. 100. [?]
66) Note 61.<w:t xml:space="preserve">67) Dogmatik, p. 284.
68) Theol. F. C. II, 151. Corp. Ref. XXI, 775. Menius also puts the two sentences: 1. that "new obedience to God … is also necessary for salvation". 2. is also necessary for salvation", 2. "if one sins against conscience after having obtained forgiveness, that one thereby loses life and salvation" as equally true side by side. (Response of Justi Menii to M. Flacii Illyrians poisonous slander. Wittemb. 1557, fol. No. 4; in Thomasius, Bekenntnis usw., S. 103 f.)
26 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 23]
and good works, on the other, to the Christian's state of faith. The teaching of Scripture can be briefly summarized as follows: "Evil works destroy faith, but good works do not preserve faith."
First of all, the Scriptures teach very clearly and firmly that evil works destroy faith. The Scripture says of the people who by evil works cast away the good conscience, that they were shipwrecked in the faith, περί την πίοτιν ένανάγησαν.69) The Formula of Concord refers to the whole class of Scripture statements which read thus, "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of boys, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor blasphemers, nor robbers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."70) The Lutheran Confession testifies to the same thing. 71) The Holy Scriptures also reveal to us the reason for the fact that evil works destroy faith. Not man, but the Holy Spirit is the causa efficiens of faith in the human heart. Now because through evil works the Holy Spirit is grieved and finally departs from the heart, evil works destroy faith. Hence the admonition Eph. 4:30: "Do not grieve (μη λνπεϊτε) the Holy Spirit of God, that you may be sealed to the day of redemption." The Holy Spirit, who entered the human heart with faith, is, as a Spirit of faith,72) so also a Spirit of sanctification and good works.73) He admonishes and inwardly drives unceasingly to the avoidance of evil and to the doing of good.74) If the Holy Spirit is persistently hindered in this part of His
69) 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18.
70) Formula of Concord 630, 32 [Trigl. 947, F. C., Sol. Decl., IV, 32 🔗]; 1 Cor. 6:9 ff; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Rom. 8:13; Col. 3:6.
71) Formula of Concord 630, 31 [Trigl. 947, F. C., Sol. Decl., IV, 31 🔗]: "This false Epicurean delusion is to be seriously rebuke and rejected, that some think that faith and the received righteousness and salvation cannot be lost by any, even willful and deliberate sin or evil works."
72) 2 Cor. 4:13: το πνεύμα της πίστεως. Meyer on this passage: "The πίοτις which the Spirit works was with David’s confidence in God, with Paul faith in salvation in Christ." Correct with respect to Paul and all Christians. But David's "trust in God" was also faith in salvation in Christ, as David himself explicitly says 2 Sam. 23:1.
73) Gal. 5:22: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, chastity."
74) Of course, even with true Christians, because of the flesh clinging to them, the sanctifying work of the
27 > and good works. [English ed. ~ 24]
Holy Spirit is not without continual hindrance. Therefore, it must be held with all seriousness and taught incessantly in the church that evil works destroy the faith.
But on the other hand, it cannot be said that good works keep faith in the human heart. Admittedly, good works, because they are an activity of faith worked by the Holy Spirit, are for Christians a mark of their faith and state of grace (testimonium externum Spiritus Sancti de fide et statu gratiae). For this reason, too, Christians should show all diligence in good works.75) But the proposition that good works preserve faith and thus salvation turns upside down everything that Scripture says about the relationship of faith to good works. Good works do not sustain faith, but vice versa: faith sustains good works, since, according to Scripture, good works are in every case only the effect, fruit and consequence of faith in the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake.76) One must wonder that within the Lutheran Church the proposition of the preservation of faith by good works or by the cessation of evil works could be seriously asserted and defended. Major and his comrades were therefore rightly reminded of the self-contradiction in which they moved, when on the one hand they claimed to hold that good works were only fruits and effects of faith, yet on the other hand they advocated the proposition that faith is preserved by good works. The Majoristic proposition is as senseless as if someone wanted to claim that the fruits bear the tree instead of the other way around. Majorism acquires a reasonable sense only when one does not let good works be merely the fruit and consequence of faith, but puts good works before faith. It belongs to the semi-Pelagian-synergistic and thus to the Roman camp, to which the Formula of Concord also expressly refers it (631, 35 [Trigl 949, Sol. Decl., IV, 35 🔗]):
Holy Spirit. That they do not lose faith over this is because they stand in "daily repentance" (poenitentia continuata, quotidiana). They bear sorrow for their peccata commissionis and omissionis (Paul, Rom. 7:24), take hold of the forgiveness of sins in faith, and through the forgiveness of sins retain dominion over the affairs of the flesh, Rom. 6:14: "Sin shall not be able to have dominion over you, because ye are not under the law, but under grace."
75) 2 Pet. 1:10. Formula of Concord 630, 33. [Trigl 947, F. C., Sol. Decl., IV, 33 🔗]
76) Cf. the detailed exposition p. 6 ff.
28 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 24-25]
"Let what was concluded in the Trent Concilio, and what else has been directed more to the same opinion, that our good works preserve blessedness, or that the received righteousness of faith, or even faith itself, is preserved and preserved by our works, either wholly, or yea, in part, be rejected." The Roman character of Majorism should be frankly admitted. Any defense of it runs counter to both logic and the Scriptural doctrine of justification. Recent theologians have attempted to excuse Major with the good intention of "asserting the necessity of faith-originating renewal and good works."77) But between "the necessity of faith-originating renewal and good works" and the assertion that works sustain faith, there is not the slightest logical connection. On the contrary, as certainly as regeneration and good works are only fruits of faith, they do not preserve faith, but works are preserved by faith, as has already been pointed out. — Next, consider the situation that arises with respect to the actual attainment of salvation from Majorism. If good works preserve faith and thus salvation, the situation stands in such a way that faith is no longer the only means of attaining salvation, but good works, as the means of attaining salvation, stand beside faith, indeed in place of faith. Man then no longer attains salvation by faith minus works, but by faith plus works. But this is exactly the Roman doctrine of fides caritate formata. Luthardt78) also correctly says of Major's doctrine, "Thus the continuance of fellowship with God is traced to faith and new obedience at the same time." Even Thomasius finally acknowledges this when he says of Major's and Menius' propositions, "The salvation of man still has two factors: the work of God's grace through Christ for us and the work of the Spirit in us; trust in the latter and obedience to the latter. In the course of the Christian life, faith does not completely give up its principle
77) Thomasius, Das Bekenntnis der ev.-luth. K. in der Konsequenz seines Prinzips, p. 105 f.; Seeberg, Dogmengesch. II, 352.
78) Dogmatik, p. 321.
29 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 25-26]
meaning to sanctification, but it shares it with it and thereby loses it.” 79) — It has also been argued in favor of Majorism that he does not want the good works which he calls necessary for salvation to be regarded as merit. So already Major himself.80) This objection makes a special impression on newer theologians. And yet we have here only the same self-deception and deception which we already encountered in the doctrines of conversion and justification. Even the facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, the right conduct, the refrain from willful refrain, etc., should not imply any merit with respect to the coming about of conversion, but the aforementioned must be there as something on which — besides the grace of God — conversion also depends (conditio sine qua non). Likewise, in justification, works should not be present as merit, but only as something without which justification does not come about.81) We already proved earlier that here there is only a playing with words.82) One ascribes to what one does not want to call "merit" nevertheless the effect of merit, namely, "that through this very little we obtain righteousness and grace."83) So it stands with respect to Major's saying that good works, though not as merit, are nevertheless necessary to salvation. In this address, the one who asks about his salvation will turn his eyes away from the gospel, which promises salvation for Christ's sake "without law" and "without works of the law,"
79) Das Bekenntnis usw., p. 108.
80) Answer to the Venerable Niklas von Amsdorf's doctrine: "That although we teach that works are necessary for the salvation of souls, yet such good works cannot work or merit that sin be forgiven us, righteousness imputed to us, the Holy Spirit and eternal life given to us; for such glorious heavenly goods find us acquired through the death of our one Mediator and Savior Jesus Christ alone, and must be received through faith alone. Nevertheless, there must also be good works, not as merit, but as guilty obedience to God." (In Gieseler III, 2, 214.) In this sense the Wittenberg students also advocated Major. (Salig I, 646.) — Major especially urges the "not as merit" in Testamentum Doctoris Georgii Maioris 1570, B 2; in Schmid-Hauck, p. 377.
81) Praesentia bonorum operum ad iustificationem necessaria est. [Google]
82) With respect to conversion II, p. 579 f.; with respect to justification, p. 645 f.
83) Luther, II, p. 580.
30 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 26]
and will look for the works that are supposedly necessary for salvation, thus actually basing the attainment of salvation on works and thus transferring it to the area of the law. Therefore, the Formula of Concord still points out this deception very emphatically. Among the doctrines that "should not be taught, defended, or glossed over (pingendae) in the church" [Trig. 947, 29 🔗], it also includes the doctrine: "One should not place faith in the merit of works, but one should nevertheless have them as necessary things for salvation" and: "Although we require works as necessary for salvation, we do not teach to place trust in works." [Trigl. 945, Sol. Decl., IV, 27 ff. 🔗] In short, one cannot but refer the Majoristic propositions, according to their content, to the Roman camp. And as their content is Roman, so also their effect with respect to the certainty of justification and salvation. For if good works are necessary for the preservation of faith and salvation, then, as the Formula of Concord reminds us (629, 23 [Trigl. 945, 23 🔗]), the comfort of the gospel, which promises grace and salvation without works, is taken away from "the tempted, afflicted consciences," while among the sure ones "the presumption of one's own righteousness and the confidence in one's own works" are strengthened.84)
Majorism thought and thinks to find cover behind Hebr. 12:14: "Without sanctification no one will see the Lord". With regard to this passage, two things have to be said: 1. The sanctification that is called for here presupposes faith, which already possesses salvation (Eph. 2:8; Joh. 5:24). Christians sanctify themselves insofar as they already have heaven in faith, Col. 3:1 ff; 2 Cor. 7:1. Insofar as we have our treasure in heaven, we let go of the dung of this earth. 2 The words of this passage are a warning against carnal security, as is evident from the context. They therefore belong to the law. Now, of course, the law must still be told to Christians, namely in so far as they are still inclined to carnal security and
84) The ministries of Lübeck, Hamburg, Brunswick and Magdeburg say in Schlüsselburg VII, 598 sq.: Necessitas operum requisita ad salutem conditionem addit doctrinae fidei, salutem incertam, facit et inducit conscientias in dubitationem. Si bona opera necessaria sunt ad salutem, incerta est promissio, dubia salus, conscientiae necesse habent haesitare et angi de salute. Semper disputabunt et quaerent, quot, quanta et qualia opera sint necessaria, et an habeant opera, quae necessaria sint ad salute. [Google]
31 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 26-27]
forget about sanctification. In this sense, that is, in the sense of warning against carnal security, there stands also the statement, "Without sanctification, no man shall see the Lord." For the words immediately follow, "Take heed (επιοκοπούντες) lest any man neglect the grace of God, lest a bitter root grow up and cause mischief, and many be defiled by it; lest any man be a fornicator, or an ungodly man, like Esau, who for the sake of a meat sold his firstborn." In short, it is obvious that these words belong to the sermon of the law, and it is therefore also obvious that these words are not to be quoted in answer to the question by which the sinner condemned to hell by the law takes hold of and keeps the grace and salvation acquired by Christ and offered in the gospel. As is well known, this happens through faith in the gospel without works of the law, thus also without the works described in Hebr. 12:14-16. As Luther reminds us again and again, we must completely forget the law and everything it demands of us when it comes to obtaining God's grace and salvation. Therefore, also with regard to Hebr. 12:14-16, it must be said that the passage, like all other passages that demand good works, belong to the law (sunt phrases legales), are directed against carnal certainty (contra fucatam fidem) and are to be kept out of the article of justification and attainment of salvation. — Following the passage in Hebrews, we should also note a defense of Majorism, which also involves a blending of law and gospel. Both Major and Menius claimed that even if the proposition of the necessity of good works for salvation is not true in the area of justification, it has its justification in the area of the obedientia of the new man. 85)
85) Major in "Confession of the Article of Justification," B. 2: "The good works commanded by God and the new obedience are necessary to the believers for salvation, not to earn it, which they already have by grace through faith alone, but as an effect of true faith. (In Thomasius, Bekenntnis usw., p. 102.) Menius in "On the Preparation for the Blessed Dying": "Even if in the believer righteousness and life, which beginning in this life … is still quite weak and imperfect, it is nevertheless necessary for salvation and will be perfected in the future after the resurrection." (In Salig III, 55.)
32 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 27-28]
On the other hand, it must be said that good works are not necessary for salvation even in the area of the new obedience. Works are not necessary for salvation. The new obedience is the fulfillment of the law.86) And as certainly as the attainment of salvation is not dependent on the fulfillment of the law, so certainly is the new obedience not necessary for salvation.
In contrast to Major's assertion that good works are necessary for salvation, Nikolaus von Amsdorf stated that good works are harmful for salvation.87) With regard to Amsdorf's way of speaking, the Formula of Concord first indicates that it was originally well-meant, namely, that reliance on good works was harmful to the attainment of grace and salvation. Here the Formula of Concord repeats very emphatically: "If any man would draw good works into the article of justification, and set his righteousness or confidence of salvation thereon, and thereby merit the grace of God, and thereby be saved: whereupon we do not say, but Paul himself says, and repeats it the third time Phil. 3, that to such a man his works are not only useless and hindering, but also harmful." After this explanation, however, the Confession also turns quite decisively against Amsdorf's way of speaking. From the fact that reliance on good works is harmful, it does not follow at all "that one should say simplicitor and thus merely (nude): Good works are harmful to the believer for and in salvation. Good works are not harmful, but are to be done with all diligence: 1. because they are a "display" of salvation to Christians, according to Phil. 1:28; 2. because they have "God's will and express command"; 3. because God promises to good works a "glorious reward in this life and in the life to come". For this reason, the talk about the harmfulness of good works for salvation is to be avoided as contrary to Scripture and annoying, because it weakens discipline and respectability.88) — With respect to Major, it should be added that he later (1558) declared that he did not want to "give anyone cause for further quarreling, with the refrain of these words: The words 'good works are necessary for salvation' are not to be used any longer
86) Rom. 13:8-10.
87) "That the proposition: Good works are harmful to salvation, is a right true Christian proposition, taught and preached by the saints Paul and Luther. Niklas von Amsdorf 1559." (Salig I, 642.)
88) Formula of Concord 632, 37-40. [Trigl. 949, 37-40 🔗]
33 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 28-29]
because of the false interpretation, as I have been abstaining from them for many years.".89) From these words it is clear that Major was also later unclear about the actual nature of his sentence. The sentence that good works are necessary for salvation is not merely "because of the wrong interpretation", but is wrong in itself; it does not allow for any correct interpretation. The Formula of Concord is therefore right to reject the phrase absolutely, whether one thinks of the attainment or the preservation of salvation, or of faith. There is only one cure for the Majoristic phrase: the words "to salvation" must be deleted from it. After this deletion, it reads, "Good works are necessary." With this deletion, however, the Majorism that has caused so much distress to the Church is abandoned.
The phrase: "Sanctification and good works are necessary" is correct. It should not be criticized. It is already above criticism from the outset because it is a way of speaking from Holy Scriptures. Scripture calls our obedience to authority a "necessity" (άνάγκη)90) and the fact that we obey God more than men a must (δεϊ).91) If a phrase of Scripture has been misused by false teachers to cover their error—and this has also happened with the expressions "necessary," "must," etc.— the misuse must be exposed and rejected. The manner of speaking itself, however, is not to be objected to, but to be held fast. The contrary procedure would involve a criticism of the Holy Spirit, as if he had not known how to speak unmistakably. If we ask more closely in what sense we should address the necessity of sanctification and good works, Scripture instructs us that sanctification and good works are necessary because God wants them (necessitate voluntatis et praecepti sive mandati divini). It is 1 Thess. 4:3: τοντό εστι τό ϑέλημα τον ϑεον ο αγιασμός νμών; 1 John 3:23: αντη έσύν ή εντολή αντον, ΐνα … άγαπώμεν άλληλονς, καβώς Ρδωκεν εντολήν ήμιν. And indeed God wills or commands sanctification and good works in several respects. He wills them a. for his own sake. The justified
89) "Bekenntnis von dem Artikel der Justifikation," B. 3. (In Schmid-Hauck, p. 377.)
90) Rom. 13:5.91) Acts 5:29.
34 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 29]
are not to serve sin and the devil, but God, their rightful Lord, who created them and then bought them dear through the blood of His Son. Sanctification and good works are also a purpose of redemption.92) b. For the sake of Christians. Christians are to have in their sanctification and in their good works an outward sign (testimonium Spiritus Sancti externum) of their state of grace and salvation.93) c. For the sake of the world. The world should have an external witness to the truth of the gospel in the works and conduct of Christians, and thus be induced to hear the saving word.94) — This necessity, however, is not a compulsion (necessitas coactionis), but a willingness, because Christians, inasmuch as they are renewed, or after the new man, gladly and with pleasure do the will of God, Rom. 7:22: συνήδομαι τφ νόμω τον ϑεον κατά τον εσω άνϑρωπον. They are therefore. When the necessity of sanctification and good works is addressed, God's will, command, and precept, on the one hand, and the willingness or voluntariness on the part of Christians, on the other, are not to be opposed to each other, but are to be bound together, because the law, that is, God's will, command, and precept, is written on the heart of the Christian through the gospel (Jer. 31:31 ff.).95) This is to be noted against antinomianism,
92) Tit. 2:12-14: "Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem (λντρώσηται, ransom) us from all unrighteousness, and purify unto himself a people for a possession, to be diligent to good works (ζηλωτήν καλών έργων)." Eph. 2:10: "We are his workmanship (ποίημα), created in Jesus Christ Jesus unto good works." Luther (St. L. XVI, 2241 f.): "Christ is therefore Christ or has acquired redemption from sins and death, that the Holy Spirit should make us new men from the old Adam, that we may be dead to sins and alive to righteousness, as St. Paul teaches Rom. 6, beginning and increasing here on earth and accomplishing it there. For Christ has merited for us not only gratiam, grace, but also donum, the gift of the Holy Spirit, that we might have not only remission of sins, but also cessation of sins."
93) 1 John 3:14: "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren." (Apol. 135, 154 f. [Trigl. 199, 154 f. 🔗] Luther on Matt. 6:14. 15; St. L. VII, 512 ff. Cf. the section on "Justification by Works," II, p. 654 ff.).
94) 1 Pet. 2:12 ("Lead a good walk among the heathen" etc.): 3:1. 2 (those who do not believe in the word shall be won by the women's walk without word); Matt. 5:13-16 (salt of the earth, light of the world).
95) Therefore, one has also addressed an "inner necessity" or "natural necessity" in contrast to compulsion, as a good tree brings forth fruit according to its
35 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 30]
which did not want to suffer the expressions "necessary," "needful," "ought," and "must" in the Church, because it incomprehensibly assumed that these expressions always meant only compulsion.96) — Likewise, the expressions "willingness," "free," etc., are to be left uncriticized. Scripture uses these expressions to denote the right kind of good works in contrast to the compulsion of the law.97) If it was claimed that by these expressions the good works were transferred to the realm of adiaphora, this was also a misunderstanding and misuse of the scriptural words.98)
good nature and the sun shines according to its created nature. So also Luther, Erl. A. 58, 350 f. Willfulness belongs to the essence of a good work. Insofar as inner unwillingness is bound up with the works, they are not good but evil works. Quenstedt says rightly (II, 1374): A bono opere abesse debet omnis coactio; non modo enim indignus est laude, sed ne quidem dignus est venia, qui invitus officium facit. Damnat enim ipse actionem suam, aliter facturus, si daretur optio. [Google] Therefore, Christians need forgiveness of sins even for their good works, because unwillingness is still attached to these works due to the reluctant flesh of Christians. Roman ignorance condemned Luther’s sentences such as these, "A pious man sins in all his good works." (Cf. Luther, St. L. XV, 1551 ff.).
96) Melanchthon reports in his report to the Senate of Nordhausen (Corp. Ref. VIII, 411): "Some do not want to tolerate this address: Good works are necessary, or thus: one must do good works; do not want to have these two words, necessitas and debitum, and the court preacher [Agricola] stood at the same time and played with the word must: the must is salted; understood necessarium and debitum [duty] for forced by fear of punishment, extortum coactione, [extorted by coercion] and spoke high words', how good works would come without law" (which is admittedly also true of the Christian according to the new man). "So, however, necessarium and debitum are not first called extortum coactione, but the eternal and immutable order of divine wisdom, and the Lord Christ and Paul themselves need this word' necessarium and debitum." (See Trigl., Hist. Introd., p. 123 f.) It is not correct when Melanchthon says of the proposition: "Good works are necessary for salvation": "this disputation arose from many previous mischievous statements of twenty years ago." Melanchthon himself had raised that "proposition" twenty years ago, and the cause of it was his synergistic impulses.
97) Ps. 110:3: עַמְּךָ֣ נְדָבֹת֮ [HEBREW]; Cor. 9:7: "Each according to his own will (καϑώς προηρηται τη καρδία), not from unwillingness or compulsion" (εξ ανάγκης); 1 Pet. 5:2: μη άναγκαστικώς, άλλα εκονσίως. ["Not by constraint, but willingly”]
98) Formula of Concord 628, 20 [Trigl. 945, 20 🔗]: "It is wrong and must be punished, if it is pretended and taught, as if the good works were thus free to the believers, that it stood in their free will that they do or leave such … would like."
36 > Sanctification and good works. [English ed. ~ 30-31]