seeking the origin of salvation and sanctification

HRSTH85 – Research Report in Systematic Theology
Student Name: Christensen, Andreas Debel
Student No.: 60912782
2
1.1 Field of Study and Problem Statement ................................................................................... 4
1.2 Literature ............................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Method .................................................................................................................................. 8
1.4 Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 8
1.5 Ambition ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.5 The Tools of the Spirit ......................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Works.................................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 17
3.4 The Interplay of Divine and Human Agency ........................................................................ 19
3.5 The Judgement of Good Works ........................................................................................... 19
3.6 Two Meanings of ‘faith’ ...................................................................................................... 20
4 Discussion and Comparison ....................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 23
4.3 The Core and the Sign ......................................................................................................... 24
HRSTH85 Student No.: 60912782 Unique No.: 798856
3
4.4.1 Present and Future Judgement ....................................................................................... 25
4.4.2 Defining Sanctification ................................................................................................. 26
4.4.4 Forgetting Oneself ........................................................................................................ 28
5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 31
4
1.1 Field of Study and Problem Statement
The western part of the Church is facing serious challenges these years. Whilst the economy is
flourishing, and we have come a long way in terms of equality and welfare, Christianity is in decline.
Estimates show that in 2010 74.5 % of Europeans were affiliated with Christianity (Pew Research
Center 2015:147). The same estimates expect this percentage to have decreased to 65.2 % in 2050,
meaning that in about 30 years the number of Christians in Europe will have fallen by as many as 100
million. As severe as this projection seems, it still does not take into account the many people who
adhere to the Christian Church despite infrequent church attendance and a general lack of religious
practice (Brenner 2016:563).
The same trend is traceable in Denmark. The Evangelical Lutheran national Church, which
dominates the Danish ecclesiastical landscape, has experienced a fall from 80.9 % members in 2010
to 75.9 % in 2017 (Kirkeministeriet 2017). It must also be considered that many Danes see themselves
as solely cultural Christians. Most members of the Church only set foot in the churches in connection
with baptisms, confirmations, weddings, or funerals. About three percent attend Church weekly
(Allingham 2006). In summary, the Danish Christians are fewer and less practicing than was the case
few decades ago.
The reason why I am interested specifically in the Danish context is that I, myself, am situated in
the small community of Denmark. Admittedly, with less than 6 million citizens the country is not
large in size, and neither is the Christian denomination which we adhere to, the Protestant branch,
Lutheranism. Nevertheless, this tiny corner of the globe is where I call home, and it is as much in
need of God’s redemptive work as anywhere else. This is not to say that I do not consider the global
Church of Christ my home. Actually, I am hopeful that the present research project could prove
enlightening to the universal and timeless understanding of Christianity; not just the Danish one. The
central beliefs of Lutheran Christianity are, after all, shared more or less by many denominations
across the world. Just as most theologians probably do, I seek to understand the Biblical mysteries as
comprehensively as possible, even if new findings deviate from my previous convictions. Only, the
starting point is my own context: Denmark.
Returning to the disheartening statistics, the question naturally arises: how can we counteract this
unfortunate development? We might also wonder: is it even possible to identify theological issues on
5
mere statistics? Do numbers actually say anything about the state of the Western Church? To these
questions, I will frankly answer that I basically believe that the number of confessing Christians, as
well as the perceived activity level of those Christians, are direct symptoms of the spiritual well-being
of a community. Revival denotes “growth in the extent and intensity of a group of Christians’ […]
feeling of obligation towards their faith and such faith’s consequences.” (Larsen 2011. My
translation). Therefore, spiritual well-being is, in some sense, measurable through “faith’s
consequences”. It is not solely internal and invisible. Of course, special cases and other objections
might be voiced against this, but such a discussion is beyond the parameters of this research.
Concerning what could be done to help the situation, I would like to approach this question from
a different angle. Danish scholar in Church history, Kurt E. Larsen, has conducted research on
revivals in the nineteenth and twentieth century Denmark. He, most interestingly, lists five common
characteristics of Christian revival. The first and the last reads as follows, “1: The proclamation of
justification by grace, on faith alone. […] 5: A missional state of mind and activism.” (Larsen 2005:8.
My translation). So, on the one hand, it is essential that the gospel focuses on God’s grace, setting
humans free from sin and death. On the other hand, it is important to encourage mission and Christian
activism. These characteristics are worth paying attention to because they might be instrumental in
reversing the current development. One might ask, whether we can locate a theological standpoint,
which explains and mirrors these marks, and which is present in Denmark. I believe such a position
can be located.
Larsen’s signs of revival demonstrate a focus on both a proclamation as well as a practice in the
Church. These two signs are striking in the light of the fundamental Lutheran teaching of ‘faith and
works’. This is a teaching, which prevails in the Danish Church landscape. In accordance with this,
faith and works are, respectively, the inner core and the outer expression of Christianity (see section
2.4). The former is evoked by the preaching of God’s merciful justification of the sinner. The latter
arises naturally out of the former, and consists, in all its diversity, of loving acts. Therefore, the
Lutheran concepts, ‘faith’ and ‘works’, correspond to the two characteristics listed by Larsen.
Consequently, we can deduce a possible link between Larsen’s observations on revival, and the
proper teaching of faith and works. To bring the Church back on its right foot, many relevant Christian
initiatives might be proposed, yet they would all be encompassed by the notion of ‘good works’. With
this term, Lutheranism covers a lot of ground. Also, works are somehow connected to faith. In due
course, we shall explore the relation between these concepts.
6
Apart from being employed by the great reformer, the two notions find their roots already in the New
Testament letters (Gal 3:2-5; Eph 2:8-10; James 2:14-26). The Greek words used are εργον and πιστις.
Εργον refers to “work” (or ‘good work', εργον αγαθον) as “an act”, “a toil”, and not a decision (Berg
1885). In Galatians, the term ‘εργa νομου’ is employed, usually translated ‘works of the law’. Nομου
from the nominative, νομος, can mean “custom”, “common practice”, “law”, or “order”. Πιστις
denotes “faith”, “faithfulness”, or “trust” (Berg 1885). From the beginning, it was apparently
imperative for the New Testament writers that these terms were not confused with one another.
Whether they are strictly separated (Gal 3:2-5), strongly connected (James 2:14-26), or profoundly
intercorrelated (Eph 2:8-10), they must, indeed, be important Biblical concepts to grasp.
So far, we are able to establish the relevance of the Lutheran teaching on faith and works on three
grounds: (1) with Larsen’s research in mind, we find that the teaching could very well be central to
Christian renewal; (2) we note that ‘faith and works’ is a concept that lingers in Danish theology and
preaching, which is the context I wish to address; (3) we realize that the proper understanding of the
two words is an urgent matter in several New Testament letters. In summary, it is, thus, possible to
establish the importance of the ‘faith and works’ teaching on the basis of both scriptural mention and
historical experience.
There is another couple of theological terms that we must relate the following discussion to. These
are the notions of ‘soteriology’ and ‘sanctification’. ‘Soteriology’ is the overall term for the doctrine
of salvation, where ‘salvation’, in the present project, denotes the eschatological inheritance of eternal
life. ‘Sanctification’ concerns the tangible transformation of the Christian’s lifestyle, formally, the
doctrine of sanctification. These terms, though, are too broad to correlate directly to my field of
research, since they address a wide array of questions such as, “What is salvation?”, “Who is salvation
for?”, “What effects does sanctification have?”, and so on. It might be unavoidable to touch on these
issues, but there are two main questions, which I will seek to answer: firstly, “How is salvation
achieved?”, and, secondly, “How is sanctification achieved?”. These questions are central to what
Lutherans believe to answer in the teaching of faith and works. I find that it is better to apply a neutral
framework for the discussion, which would be acceptable to all the theologians that I am going to
introduce.
This research project will seek to determine how the notions of ‘salvation’ and ‘sanctification’ fit
together. Most theologians would agree that good works (whatever this may specifically imply) are
identical to, or at least the signs of, sanctification. We shall seek to understand how sanctification is
connected to salvation. Lutheranism holds strongly that soteriology is based solely on faith. Other
7
denominations have a different view of soteriology (e.g. The Roman Catholic Church), incorporating
works.
The time has come to close in on the problem statement. As mentioned, there are plenty of reasons
for me to reevaluate the Lutheran teaching of faith and works. As for the choice of conversation
partner, I am intrigued by the so-called ‘New Perspective on Paul’. This is a way of reading the letters
of Paul, which arose in the nineteen sixties and seventies, and which has been advocated by scholars
such as Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright (Mattison 2009). The New
Perspective on Paul is a school of thought that relies heavily on the reacquisition of Paul’s Jewish
roots and context. This way, it intends to best the reformatory understanding of Paul (Mattison 2009).
Today, it must be acknowledged that The New Perspective on Paul has set a distinguished footprint
on the Protestant theological landscape, manifested in both anger and excitement (Anon. 2003:383;
Wright 2009:vii). I have chosen this viewpoint as an opponent to the Lutheran tradition. My problem
statement is this:
How should our understanding of the way in which, respectively, salvation and
sanctification are achieved be formed in the light of the Lutheran teaching of ‘faith and
works’ as well as in the light of ‘The New Perspective on Paul’?
1.2 Literature
For this project, I would like to draw on two theological works. Firstly, I will draw on Robert Kolb’s
and Charles P. Arand’s “The Genius of Luther’s Theology: A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the
Contemporary Church” (Kolb and Arand [Kolb-Arand] 2008), and secondly, on the book by N.T.
Wright: “Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision.” (Wright 2009).
I have chosen R. Kolb’s and C.P. Arand’s (for future reference: Kolb-Arand) exposition because
it offers an edifying overview of the theology we associate with Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon
and their like-minded. In many respects, Kolb-Arand’s work shows in plain categories, what Luther
intended to communicate in his comprehensive and multi-faceted authorship. Such literature might
prove very helpful in a brief treatment as this, where we seek to understand the relations between
concepts without room for a more exhaustive analysis. Apart from that, I have chosen it as a work
that represents the Western Lutheranism that we are used to in Denmark. Whenever Kolb-Arand’s
exposition is under scrutiny, so is my own context.
8
Wright’s book has been chosen for several reasons. First of all, Wright stands as the, perhaps,
strongest profile in the New Perspective on Paul movement. This might be because of the vast
amounts of literature he has produced, and because his writing is well-informed and thorough (though
“Justification” is concise). He writes with apparent candor as he dares to challenge his own tradition
as well as others’. Wright exhibits extensive methodological awareness and insight into the dangers
of scholarly motivations. Like Kolb-Arand, Wright is usually quite lucid in his explanations, thus
aiding my work. Also, he works from a premise, which is acceptable to a Lutheran: sola scriptura.
Scripture alone is authoritative to theology (Wright 2009:6-7).
1.3 Method
When giving an account of Kolb-Arand’s as well as Wright’s views on the topic present, I will utilize
a hermeneutical reading of the two. The main focus of this reading will be to capture the texts' explicit
as well as implicit statements on soteriology and sanctification. As I attempt to arrive at a solid
standpoint, I will use the synthetic constructive method to form a new position or solidify an existing
one. This aim will be accomplished by drawing on the strengths and arguments from the two
positions, which I have yet to expound. I expect that this can be done without forcing incompatible
views to cohere, insofar as Scripture does not demand incomprehensible connections, as is the case
in, for instance, the classical doctrine of God’s trinity: God being three and one at the same time.
The synthesis will, firstly, be developed on a premise of scriptural authority, based on an
understanding of the Biblical literature on the subject. Yet, this project is one of systematic theology
and not of exegesis. Therefore, we will gain only an overview of the relevant passages and not engage
in verse-to-verse analysis. The synthesis will, secondly, be developed on a criterion of coherence.
The strength of systematic theology is that it employs well-defined categories, hierarchies, causality
correlations, and so forth to comprehensively understand the Christian doctrines. That will also be
my aim with this research.
1.4 Procedure
This synopsis introduces and frames the report as chapter 1. In chapter 2 and 3, respectively, I will
expound Kolb-Arand’s and Wright’s views on salvation and sanctification, as they appear in the
material present. I will then work out a comparison of the two and approach my own standpoint in
chapter 4. A summarizing conclusion to the project will be given in chapter 5.
9
1.5 Ambition
My ambition with this research project is to understand and evaluate the Lutheran teaching of faith
and works, which permeates the Danish Church in different ways. I aim to capture this work in the
concepts of soteriology and sanctification, which are relevant to the worldwide Church. Hopefully, a
renewed insight can contribute to the revitalization of Christianity in the West.
10
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I will pass on the points presented by Kolb-Arand that I believe to be of greatest value
to this project: determining the origins of personal salvation and sanctification. This venture will first
take us to Luther’s reformatory discovery that we are ‘absolute receivers’. Next, we shall see how the
status of absolute receivers unfolds in the matrix of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, which elaborates the
meaning of ‘God’s righteousness’. Having established the crucial notion of being ‘righteous by faith’,
we will proceed to unravel the fabric that ‘saving faith’ is composed of. This will be done thoroughly
since ‘faith’ is such an essential concept. From there, we shall seek to conceptualize the Lutheran
understanding of sanctification, though it is a little under-represented in “The Genius of Luther’s
Theology”. This will include an exposition of the Lutheran view on works as well as of the struggle
against sin. Hereby, the chapter on Lutheranism will be concluded.
2.2 Absolute Receivers
In Martin Luther’s day, God’s righteousness was understood, above all, to denote God’s lawful
judgment of the wrongdoers. Luther saw the same law under Christ as had been under Moses, except
that the obedience demanded by Christ was even stricter than that of Moses (Kolb-Arand 2008:35-
36). In this context, the so-called ‘reformatory discovery’ was that ‘God’s righteousness’ is not
something which we earn; it is bestowed upon us by someone else, namely God. Luther realized this
upon reading Romans 1:17, “The just shall live by faith”, and because of this he came to understand
that there are, indeed, two righteousnesses. The one is acquired through faith as a gift; this is the one
that saves. The other is achieved through the works of the Law, and it is the one visible to the world.
The first Luther called ‘passive righteousness’, because we are passive before God, and the second
he coined ‘active righteousness’, because in the world we are actively responsible for keeping God’s
commands. Also, the active righteousness is based on the passive, because the passive righteousness
of faith effects the active good works (Kolb-Arand 2008:26-27.36).
Subsequently, Luther’s view on God changed rapidly as well. Where he had been used to seeing
God as a harsh inexorable judge, he now learned that God’s judgment on humans, though just, is
actually somewhat foreign to him. God’s true character is that of the father whose deepest concern is
11
love and mercy, because of which he sacrificed himself to save all of humankind (Kolb-Arand
2008:37).
This train of thought led Luther to determine the relationship between creation and creator. Luther
saw a fine correlation between the freely given creation of Adam and Eve (and prior to that, God’s
creation of a world for them to live in), and the free salvation by grace. When God saves, just as when
he creates, he is acting as the absolute giver directing his gifts to us, the absolute receivers (Kolb-
Arand 2008:37). That is the essence of the human relation to God. This way, Luther sought to liberate
himself and the rest of God’s people from the unbearable burden of winning God’s favor through
what we might call ‘adequate sanctification’, cooperating with faith. Now, let us go on to see how the
gift of God’s righteousness is procured through Christ.
2.3 The Atonement
This paragraph will consider the question of origin and nature of the passive righteousness, which
saves a person. In this regard, Kolb-Arand writes, “Thus, the righteousness that God restores to human
beings is not a righteousness that belongs intrinsically to his divine nature, but a righteousness that
Christ acquires for us as the second Adam” (Kolb-Arand 2008:39). Somehow, then, that
righteousness is not God’s own. Though God, indeed, is intrinsically righteous, this is not the
righteousness which is bestowed upon his creatures. Instead, Christ accomplishes something on the
cross, which is the source of the acquired righteousness that finally counts for the sinner and is made
the basis of judgment. Jesus’s acquisition of righteousness was, claimed Luther’s followers, based
upon his keeping of the Law. No person was ever able to keep the Law and hereby establish his or
her own righteousness. Instead, Christ freely placed himself under the Law, kept it flawlessly, and
finally died obediently in the place of anyone who will receive his ‘alien’ righteous status in faith
(Kolb-Arand 2008:39). This is at the heart of what Luther called the ‘joyous exchange’: Christ trades
his righteousness for human sins and nails them to the cross so that he could die, and his followers
can live (Col 2:14). Precisely, the punishment that he took means that “Christ endured the final
eschatological judgment that human beings, by their sin, fully deserved.” (Kolb-Arand 2008:40).
An aspect of Luther’s teaching on ‘God’s Word’, which also influences soteriology, is the
characteristic that ‘it does what it says’. Therefore, when God pronounces the believer ‘righteous’, it
is not merely a question of formal labeling. When God announces a person to be righteous, that status
becomes true to that person. Consequently, there is no conflict between ‘forensic’ (judicial)
righteousness and ‘essential’ (ontological) righteousness. They are the same (Kolb-Arand 2008:43).
12
Following these remarks on the fundamentals of Lutheran justification, let us move on to investigate
the nature of faith.
2.4 The Nature of Faith
To the teaching of salvation, the proper understanding of the notion, ‘faith’, is essential. Perhaps
surprisingly, Luther and Melanchthon did not unconditionally exalt the concept of ‘the gospel’, ‘the
good news’ about Christ, to be the object of faith. They emphasized the promise as a crucial part of
the gospel message. ‘The promise’ is the part that expects a response; it elicits faith. This way faith
is none of our doing, but – just like the promise it clings on to – is given to us by God (Kolb-Arand
2008:45). ‘God’s promise’ comprises several aspects, but most importantly, found Luther and
Melanchthon, it highlights the fact that God not only justifies eschatologically, but he acts here and
now. “In the here and now it brings about the very thing that it announces about the future. It creates
the reality that we are justified. It announces that we have gone through the eschatological judgment
ahead of time.” (Kolb-Arand 2008:42). Thus, even though judgment is historically eschatological, it
comes into effect in the present through faith.
In a rather everyday fashion, it is important where faith is oriented. In this regard, Luther used the
word Anfechtung, the suffering of doubt and self-accusation that takes place, when one directs his or
her sight inwards. Not much good comes from assessing one’s own merit; neither works nor sincere
faith. As a response, “The believer must refuse to put faith in empirical experience [that of self-
inadequacy and fallenness] and instead look at Christ delivered in the Word.” (Kolb-Arand 2008:50).
So, according to Lutheran teaching, we should look to Christ’s atonement for certainty. Faith is not
concerned with itself but with its object, Christ.
To reach the climax of the Lutheran exposition of faith, I will quote the words of Oswald Bayer,
“Faith is not something attached to the human person. My very being is faith, that is, my trusting that
life and what is necessary for life is given to me.” (Bayer, “Justification” in Kolb-Arand 2008:51).
Faith is what composes one’s identity. What this means is elaborated in the following, “To be human
means, first of all, to be in conversation with God, trusting him, obeying him, reveling in his gift of
our being his human children.” (Kolb-Arand 2008:141). Having faith is, therefore, basically a matter
of being situated in a humble and loving relation to God. This is the heart of what it means to ‘believe
in God’. In the following, we shall see how Luther held that faith can be striven for through specific
means, despite the elicitation of faith being essentially mysterious.
13
2.5 The Tools of the Spirit
Every gift in life is received from God. Whether by granting life in creation, atonement through
Christ, or the saving faith, it is God at work for us. This is the scope of being an absolute recipient.
In this regard, it will be proper to mention the ways in which Luther found the Holy Spirit to convey
the gift of salvation. The major framework Luther utilizes is that of the Word and the spirit. God’s
Word is active in all the concrete ways in which God addresses humankind (Kolb-Arand 2008:176-
177). Luther emphasized how God uses rather mundane tools to effect his will and, accordingly,
Luther called the earthly manifestations of the divine word ‘the means of grace’. Firstly, the means
of grace is the written and spoken word that propagates condemnation under the law and restoration
in Christ (in Lutheran terms: ‘law and gospel’). Secondly, it is the tangible rituals of the sacraments,
baptism and holy communion, by which Christ’s death and resurrection are daily repeated in the
Christian (Kolb-Arand 2008:178.218). This is the twofold scope of ‘the means of grace’, and in them
the Holy Spirit is active. He shares and reiterates the forgiveness of sins, which is reliant on faith.
This process is not a matter of “cooperation” between the earthly signs and the faith, rather faith is
aroused and strengthened by the earthly signs.
My final remark on ‘faith’ is that it is perceived differently in the eyes of God and in the eyes of
humans. From 1 Corinthians 2:14 and 12:3 it is concluded that belief is never possible apart from the
Holy Spirit. It is he who is at work. Yet, coming to faith and sustaining faith may seem completely
explainable to the human mind. It seems a perfectly reasonable process, based on the normal
capacities of thinking and feeling, mind and will. This is another instance where Lutheranism holds
that the highest wisdom is proclaiming the incomprehensible mystery of it. Faith may seem like our
own doing, but it is, in fact, the spirit acting in the means of grace (Kolb-Arand 2008:142). Via faith,
as we have seen, the means of grace also evoke good works.
Summing up, this might seem like a long succession of causal relations, but the crux of the matter
is that God gives faith through his institutions, the means of grace (Kolb-Arand 2008:180-
181.184.192). As I have now laid out the primary elements of Lutheran soteriology, I will move on
to describe the origin of sanctification.
2.6 Works
“Luther’s insight that works are not needed for justification before God soon elicited the question
“What are they good for?” Why are they needed at all?” (Kolb-Arand 2008:101). This is the issue we
14
will now turn to. If good works should not be done in order to be saved, we need to explore further
what motivation might produce them (Kolb-Arand 2008:102-103).
Initially, it should be mentioned that to Lutherans this is another instance where the Holy Spirit
comes into play. It, quite straightforwardly, is he who evokes the goodness within a person to act
lovingly with no ulterior motives, and he is brought about by faith. Faith, Holy Spirit, and a
naturally loving heart are three indivisible concepts. Furthermore, Luther defines the constituting
element of a ‘good work’, as explained rather lucidly by Kolb-Arand, “What makes a work good is
not how well the work is performed or the nature of the work. What makes it good in the eyes of
God is that it is done because of a trust that acknowledges God as God and clings to him.” (Kolb-
Arand 2008:106). Hence, Luther designated the motivation of an act as the determinant of its
‘goodness’ in God’s eyes. Anything done in faith is a good work. There can be massive differences
in the amount of joy and benefits produced by different deeds, but this has no influence on its value
to God (Kolb-Arand 2008:106).
The second point, which must be highlighted in the quest for the origin of ‘works’, is the radical
difference between the two righteousness. Though the active righteousness is irrelevant to salvation,
it is still necessary for the good of the neighbor. Kolb-Arand exemplifies that pastors are to
admonish to “Help your neighbor, not because it saves you, but because it is good for your neighbor
and because it is the way in which God intends humanity to be enjoyed.” (Kolb-Arand 2008:104).
This way, the active righteousness is appealed to through our sense of love and self-sacrifice that
notices the needs of our neighbors. The sense of empathy that all well-functioning adults possess,
the empathy that leads to good works, it cannot remain unaffected after God’s gift has been
received. On this Luther writes, “It is impossible for it [faith] not to be doing good works
incessantly […] Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever. He gropes and looks
around for faith and good works, but knows neither what faith nor what good works are.” (Preface
to the Epistle to the Romans 1546, Luther, in Kolb-Arand 2008:104). Thus, one’s tendency towards
love cannot remain unaffected after receiving faith. If one does not do good works naturally, one
simply has no real faith. Love is an indispensable corollary to faith.
Historically, Martin Luther’s high view of works became especially poignant as some of his
followers alleged that God’s Law, referring to Biblical ethics, was only appropriately conveyed in the
public sphere. The Church should stick to proclaiming the good news, they thought. Those of his
followers, Luther called ‘antinomians’, and he sharply refuted their point of view (Højlund 2017:44).
In the defense of preaching sanctification, Luther wrote,
15
It is, indeed, taking away Christ and bringing him to nought at the same time he is most
beautifully proclaimed! […] For there is no such Christ that died for sinners who do not,
after the forgiveness of sins, desist from sins and lead a new life. […] They may be fine
Easter preachers, but they are very poor Pentecost preachers, for they do not preach […]
about the sanctification by the Holy Spirit, but solely about the redemption of Jesus
Christ, although Christ (whom they extoll so highly, and rightly so) is Christ, that is, he
has purchased redemption from sin and death so that the Holy Spirit might transform us
out of the old Adam into new men (Luther 1966:114).
Thus, Luther leaves room for little doubt about the centrality of works. Especially interesting is the
phrasing that refusing to preach sanctification is “taking away Christ and bringing him to nought at
the same time he is most beautifully proclaimed!” (Luther 1966:114). This suggests that the nature
of the gospel is actually implicit in the preaching of works; that, somehow, not only will the
elicitation of faith lead to sanctification, but also the preaching of sanctification will consolidate the
message of faith. The Lutheran synthesis of faith and works is, indeed, profound. No more room
will be allocated to exploring this point here, instead, the faith-works relation will be assessed in
chapter four. Let us, lastly, turn to Kolb-Arand’s mention of the Christian struggle.
2.7 Inner Struggle: A Life of Repentance
Although Luther’s view on sanctification seems to contain a mechanical causality between faith and
works, he did acknowledge the believer’s continued inner struggle against sin. According to Kolb-
Arand, Luther found no Biblical explanation for this phenomenon (Kolb-Arand 2008:217). Therefore,
Luther limited himself to pointing out the constant need to challenge sin and evil throughout the
Christian life. Indeed, he saw the life in Christ as a movement of repeated repentance to Christ, away
from devil, world, and human desire. This movement is signified in the person’s baptism, which
means that every day the old Adam dies with Christ and the new being rises with him to new life
(Kolb-Arand 2008:218). ‘Mortification of the flesh’ is the term that the Church has traditionally used
to describe this fight against sin, and it is considered to be contained within the scope of faith. Faith
is the source of wisdom and resilience needed to identify and break evil habits (Kolb-Arand 2008:217-
218). Contrary to experiencing good works, naturally sprouting, the struggle against sin is just that: a
struggle.
As is the case with the two righteousnesses, Luther seems to have a twofold view on the term
‘sanctification’. Luther describes it on the one hand as complete in Christ and on the other as
continually growing day by day. The reason for this, Kolb-Arand believe, is that Luther wanted to
avoid any reason for pride or self-contentment. By unilaterally endorsing a progressive sanctification,
16
he would have cleared a path for benchmarking one’s own performance. This is a major concern for
Luther. Simultaneously, though, sanctification is tangibly perceived as growing in the Christian.
Hence, we arrive at the split notion of a dual sanctification, both static and progressive.
With those words, we conclude the chapter on Lutheran salvation and sanctification. By now,
hopefully, I have communicated the core as well as a few substantial details on how salvation and
sanctification are achieved in Luther’s theology. In the next chapter, we shall turn to N.T. Wright to
examine how he deals with these issues through the New Perspective on Paul.
17
3.1 Introduction
The method which was employed in the previous chapter, I will repeat in the present one. That is, I
will systematically go through the points of Wright’s book, “Justification”, which are central to
salvation and sanctification.
Firstly, I will introduce the term ‘covenantal nomism’, as it constitutes the overarching framework
for Wright’s theology. From there, we shall proceed to see how ‘works’ are inevitably related to
God’s judgment, thus underpinning the covenantal nomism thought. Also, we shall see how both
human and God are responsible for ‘works’, and, thereafter, how God judges according to works.
Finally, I shall cover the two meanings of ‘faith’ and explore how faith arises.
Quickly noted, I will be cautious in my use of the term ‘justification’, since it has come to project
too broad a meaning (McGrath 1986:1.2f; Wright 2009:64). I will treat it as a concept included in but
not exhausting soteriology. ‘Justification’ fits specifically in the forensic terminology, and will be
applied when addressing God’s reckoning the sinner ‘in the right’. Now, let us go straight into the
crux of the matter: Wright’s recognition of ‘covenantal nomism’.
3.2 Covenantal Nomism
A crucial concept for Wright is the concept of the two justifications (not to be confused with Luther’s
two righteousnesses). There is, he claims, a present justification and a future justification, each with
its own soteriological verdict. His basis for believing so is based on a work of contextual research,
which was put forward by E.P. Sanders, and which is now widely acknowledged (Wright
2009:54.56). Sanders argued that in second temple Judaism the consensus was the following: first,
the Jews, God’s people, were presently justified into membership by God’s choice, his election in the
covenant from the time of Abraham. Subsequently, since they were now justified, they should act
accordingly and keep the Torah in order to be eschatologically justified as well: to have their status
definitively confirmed (Wright 2009:54-55). This is the basic idea of ‘covenantal nomism’ (Wright
2009:53), thus hinting at a soteriology concerned with both faith and works.
With this idea, Sanders raised serious questions as for how to understand Paul in his context, for,
Wright holds, Paul does not reject the concept of covenantal nomism, he presupposes it (Wright
2009:122). The problem is this, “If initial membership is by grace, but final judgment is according to
18
works – and the New Testament, at first glance, including the Pauline corpus, does seem quite clear
at this point – then what account of those ‘works’ can we give? Is this not, at last, the moment when
Jewish ‘legalism’ is exposed?” (Wright 2009:56). To understand those works, we must first explore
the “interplay of divine and human agency at the point of obedience.” (Wright 2009:55). We will
soon get there. First, we will have a look at Paul’s usage of the phrase ‘good works’.
3.3 An Account of Pauline Moral Activity
This is where we engage with the most divisive part of the New Perspective’s contribution to the
debate on Pauline theology: its teaching on ‘good works’ (or, for the present research, sanctification).
The persistent and especially Lutheran rejection of any justification by works is what makes this part
so interesting. In Wright’s present book, he builds the argument on a brief exegesis of Romans 1:18-
3:20 (Wright 2009:158-168); Romans 2 being a chapter which, claims Wright, has frankly been
unwelcome in Lutheran reception history (Wright 2009:159).
The first point Wright establishes is the following, “Possession of Torah, as we just saw, will not
be enough; it will be doing it that counts (whatever ‘doing it’ is going to mean). Paul cannot deny this
without undermining the very foundation of all Jewish theology, namely God both as the creator and
as the just judge who will put things right at the last.” (Wright 2009:160). So, at this point, Wright
still leaves out the specific meaning of Law-obedience but holds that, based on his view on second
temple Judaism, Paul simply cannot satisfactorily deny the crucial connection between Torah-keeping
and justification. This conclusion is based on Romans 2:6 and 2:13 and is soon backed up by Paul’s
other writings, all supporting ‘good works’ as fundamental to achieving righteousness (Rom 14:10-
12; 1 Cor 3:12-15; 6:9; 2 Cor 5:10.19-21; Gal 5:19-21; 6:8; Eph 6:8).
Wright finds that the persistent mention of works-righteousness cannot be ignored or, deflectingly,
understood to earn some other prize than the final salvation itself. “Romans 2.1-16 must take its place,
not as an odd aside which doesn’t fit with what Paul says everywhere else, but as a central statement
of something he normally took for granted.” (Wright 2009:161). Thus, since Paul’s writings speak
highly of both faith and of works, Wright seeks a path which embraces the two without undermining
any aspect. It should be mentioned here that Wright, as he writes with pastoral concern, acknowledges
the fear of legalism in the sense that one can work tirelessly and fearfully to “be good enough”. He
also dismisses the classical understandings of synergism, where salvation relies partially on human
performance, partially on God’s (Wright 2009:161-162.167). Wright’s incorporation of Paul’s ‘good
works’ into soteriology does not lead this way, he assures. Instead, it leads the way to the
19
incorporation of the spirit. Hereby, I have briefly expounded Wright’s understanding of ‘good works’,
and we shall proceed to see how the interplay of divine and human agency elucidates that.
3.4 The Interplay of Divine and Human Agency
Confronted with the challenge of legalism, earning God’s favor, Wright believes that we need to
understand the “logic of love” (Wright 2009:163.165). Christian duty was never meant to be that:
duty. It was meant to be done happily to please God. God is pleased with our loving acts. Realizing
that God is not merely a calculating judge makes a lot of difference to our perspective, which is
necessary, Wright asserts, if we wish to comprehensively grasp the meaning of Rom 2:1-16 and the
rest of Scripture (Wright 2009:163.165). The logic of love is the point where we enter into the realm
of the Spirit. “when the spirit comes the result is human freedom rather than human slavery.” (Wright
2009:164). Wright insists that this spirit-driven work revolves around the paradox that truly both
man and God are responsible. This might not make a lot of sense to us, but it makes a critical
difference to our pastoral theology (Wright 2009:164). It is a matter of “being released from slavery
precisely into responsibility, into being able at last to choose, to exercise moral muscle, knowing both
that one is doing it oneself and that the spirit is at work within, that God himself is doing that which
I too am doing.” (Wright 2009:164). This is the true understanding of Paul, one which is capable of
simultaneously freeing and empowering the believers in Messiah, Wright asserts (Wright 2009:164).
The framework of the Holy Spirit is the only tool we can employ to comprehend the two verdicts as
well as the proper meaning of scripture, when it seems to speak of ‘justification by works’. Now, let
us have a deeper look at how these entwined actions are judged, and how they should be seen
practically.
3.5 The Judgement of Good Works
The first verdict is issued solely on faith. The eschatological verdict is reliant on the work of the spirit,
“if you don’t have the spirit, you’re not on the map” (Wright 2009:165). Tangibly, the final verdict
is directly connected to the actual life of each person. According to Wright’s reading of Paul, God
evaluates a person’s life according to his or her moral actions. Yet, to comprehend such an evaluation
we must understand the methodology that is employed. Let me address this with a brief overview of
three classic ethical approaches.
20
Still inside Wright’s framework, I contend that each life is not assessed from a viewpoint of ethical
consequentialism, concerned only with the results of moral actions. Neither is it assessed from a
deontological viewpoint, concerned only with conformity to specific non-negotiable rules. Instead,
God’s judgment fits rather well - I believe Wright would concur – in the ethic of virtue, which is
concerned with the character of the actor, rather than specific rules or consequences. Wright arrives
at this conclusion by consulting Romans 2:6-7, noting the virtue of seeking the good as opposed to
succeeding in the good (Wright 2009:167). Strictly speaking and not necessarily in words that Wright
would have chosen himself, I deduce that the final ruling is based on the intentions of the defendant.
God looks at the spirit’s presence in a person, not the multitude and grandeur of virtuous deeds. It is
the human heart that is assessed. The ethic of virtue aligns herewith. Unfortunately, this phrasing
leaves us open to the temptation of a detached spirituality, content with fruitless intentions. Such
phrasing is therefore primarily helpful in terms of coherency, rather than pastoral care. This
clarification helps us grasp what Wright means when he writes, “From the secure base of justification,
Paul sets out on a journey which, though its end is in fact secure, always seems like something that
has to be struggled for” (Wright 2009:130). The struggle itself reveals human intentions, intentions
which are present even before the struggle takes place. One could say that God judges the willingness
of the human being.
Against a post-Reformation misconception, Wright asserts that when we act according to the spirit,
it is only our second nature. Or rather, it becomes our second nature as we develop and sustain good
habits. Yet, we must always acknowledge the dangers of our primary nature, the desires of the flesh.
The laid-back idea of waiting for “God’s inspiration” is hereby refuted (Wright 2009:168). Instead
Wright, in relation to Philippians 1:10-11, describes sanctification as follows, “This [blamelessness,
innocence and fruits of righteousness] is the final destination, the out-working in actual holiness and
then in final vindication, of the status which is already given […]” (Wright 2009:129). The conception
of an interim between the two verdicts is, thus, elucidated. The Holy Spirit and the human soul
simultaneously produce good works on the basis of the already-given status, which is declared to
faith.
3.6 Two Meanings of ‘faith’
As we have now understood Wright’s view on good works - the part they play, who actually does
them, and how they are judged by God - let us turn to the exploration of his notion of ‘faith’. The
translation of the Greek, πστις Ιησο Χριστο, is a sensitive issue in the exegesis of Paul and,
21
therefore, important to Wright. It can mainly denote two things: ‘faithfulness of Christ’ or ‘faith in
Christ’, this way leaving open the discussion whether Ιησο Χριστο is to be understood as a
subjective genitive (faith of) or an objective genitive (faith in). This is essential because πστις (faith),
claims Wright, contains two equally important meanings:
Firstly, it refers to Christ’s own faithfulness to God. That is, faithfulness, “unto death, the
redeeming death, the dealing-with-sin death, the death that then makes it possible for sinners to be
justified, to be declared ‘in the right’, not because of any moral worth in themselves […]” (Wright
2009:178). Through Christ’s faithfulness, God himself is faithful to his ancient covenant with
Abraham; this is the universal reality.
Secondly, πστις Ιησο Χριστο refers to the believer’s faithfulness in Christ as the Messiah
(Wright 2009:96-97.178). This is faith on the human part, faith which relates to the present
justification (Wright exemplifies this ‘presence’ with Romans 3:21.26). Through our faith in Christ,
God declares us ‘in the right’ and hereby anticipates doing the same on the final day in the
eschatological justification (Wright 2009:179). This is the role of ‘faith’ in covenantal nomism.
Regarding this, it is urgent for Wright to state that the justification by faith does not happen via
any imputation. We do not receive Jesus’s own righteousness. Since Paul’s language is in close
correspondence with the contemporary notion of the law court, it must be so that God, as judge,
declares and creates the status of righteousness. Our moral character is, in this respect, unchanged.
As the foundation of all this, continues Wright, we find Christology. ‘Being in Christ’ is the source,
and it means that God’s children are “regarded as having died” (Wright 2009:181) with him and
“regarded as being themselves vindicated.” (Wright 2009:181), as he was vindicated. This is the
meaning of ‘faithfulness of Christ’ and it underlines the objective truth of salvation, Wright remarks
(Wright 2009:181).
Finally, let me return to the elaboration on human faith, for it is crucial. A characteristic of faith is
found in the example of Abraham. In Romans 4:19-21, Wright argues, Abraham’s faith is
distinguished as essentially humble. “Faith of Abraham’s kind is the sign of a genuine humanity,
responding out of total human weakness and helplessness to the grace and power of God, and thus
giving God the glory [emphasis original]” (Wright 2009:183). Also, he clarifies, “Faith is the breath
which enables us to praise God, not praise breath. […] faith in the God who has acted out his all-
powerful love in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ his son.” (Wright 2009:210). That is the
nature of human faith: devoid of self-consciousness, directed to God and his son. Such faith itself
arises as part of a mystery. Ultimately, its emergence is beyond explanation, but we are not left
22
without hints, according to Wright, “the preaching of the gospel, in the power of the spirit, is the
means by which, as an act of sheer grace, God evokes his faith in people from Abraham to the present
day and beyond.” (Wright 2009:184). This is how Wright responds to the task of locating the origin
of faith. God’s people preach the gospel, and God elicits faith. Perhaps this is another instance of
divine and human agency interlocking, one might notice. This paragraph has shown the twofold
aspects of Pauline ‘faith’, which is Christ’s (and with him God’s) rock-solid faithfulness to the
covenant, and the potential human faith in the Messiah. Hereby, I conclude my chapter on N.T.
Wright through which I have provided a measure of insight into Wright’s views on the roots of
sanctification as well as salvation.
23
4.1 Introduction
At this point, we have acquired a clarifying overview of the essential parts of Martin Luther’s as
well as N.T. Wright’s views on salvation and sanctification. In the present chapter, I will cast a
critical glance at the two opposing positions to evaluate and compare them. I will seek to determine
whether any of them has the upper hand over the other and whether they can complement or even
contain one another.
Firstly, I will put Luther’s view on “mechanical works” under scrutiny and see, whether
sanctification is fought for or spontaneously aroused. Next, I will investigate whether Luther
succeeds in achieving the bilateral Christianity of freedom and responsibility, which he seeks.
Thirdly, I will compare several points, where Luther and Wright make similar statements. Finally,
Wright’s standpoint will be considered to evaluate, if his twofold responsibility on both God and
human is credible. I will now assess Luther’s view on ‘works’.
4.2 Sanctification: Hard-fought or Inevitable?
Designating Luther’s ‘good works’ as “mechanical” is done fully on purpose, and perhaps need not
even be placed in inverted commas. As we have seen, Luther emphasizes explicitly that good works
arise as an irrefutable effect of faith (see chapter [ch.] 2.6). Calling Lutheran ‘works’ mechanical or
automatic is, therefore, though perhaps a bit crude, accurate. What might be said of this? Firstly, it
should be acknowledged that it would be close to impossible to find a trustworthy representative of
the opposite view: that works precede personal faith. Neither does Wright describe good works
without faith. The question is, however, whether we should endorse a mechanical view such as
Luther’s. I would like to argue that Luther’s view on good works is only the partial truth.
A great objection against Luther’s understanding is the fact that he recognizes the presence of sin
in the believer, and that it is not fought off easily (ch. 2.7). This is in stark contrast to his teaching on
good works. I believe his recognition of the lingering sinfulness to be true, but I also believe it
inseparable from the teaching on good works. Abstaining from sin and striving for the good are not
two different acts. It is two sides of the same coin. Life has sometimes been described as a long series
of choices, and every choice is made either in accordance with a good conscience or in neglect of the
conscience. According to Matthew, Jesus underlines the duality of life, “Whoever is not with me is
24
against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” (Matt 12:30), and likewise, Paul notes,
“for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23b). If an act is not a good work, it is sin.
If it is a good work, it cannot be sin. There is no neutral ground. Therefore, since Lutheranism
distinguishes between counteracting sin and seeking good, though they are essentially the same, I
believe to have pointed out an inconsistency. Subsequently, as I wish to recombine the two into one
teaching of sanctification, I shall have to settle, whether sanctification is essentially hard-fought or
spontaneous.
An option would be to accept all of sanctification as automatic and divinely inspired in which case
we achieve a coherent system. Such a standpoint would, though, ignore the Lutheran and - dare I
suggest - common Christian experience that sanctification continues to be a struggle after faith.
Wright would agree with this (ch. 3.5). Instead, we might try to argue that sanctification is thoroughly
a human endeavor. This viewpoint would incorporate the experience of the Christian struggle. Such
a solution definitely seems more down-to-earth and would be coherent as well. However, the problem
here is that we disregard Luther as well as Wright in ignoring that it is the Holy Spirit who works in
the Christian. Even though I have denied the possibility of purely ‘mechanical’ works of faith, I do
still believe that faith is the source and bedrock of sanctification. How could we be able to maintain
such a point of view, if we defined all of sanctification strictly as human effort? No, a different
teaching must be sought. Later on, we shall investigate Wright’s view on the intertwined human and
divine effort in sanctification. Now, let us move on to see if Luther’s teaching on sanctification
liberates the Christian from the, by Luther, much-despised works-righteousness.
4.3 The Core and the Sign
Previously I have mentioned how Luther’s notion of ‘absolute receivers’ and all it encompasses was
presented in reaction against the soteriology of sixteenth century Catholicism: God as the cold judge;
humans as participants in salvation. It was and is imperative to Lutheranism to reject any sort of
“performance-Christianity”. This being so, we are excused for posing the question: does Luther’s
soteriology actually accomplish its goal? I will seek to support the claim that it, really, does not. I do
not believe the Lutheran correlation of faith and works to set the Christian free from self-accusation.
My main argument builds upon the fact that Luther certainly did not detach works from faith. Far
from it. Admittedly, he stressed salvation by faith alone, but equally as strongly, he emphasized the
resulting transformation. In this paragraph, I mean to question that Luther’s placement of
25
sanctification outside the realm of salvation helps in freeing the guilt-stricken Christian. On the
surface, it seems liberating, but in my view, it only relocates the problem.
The crux of the matter is that sanctification remains the sign of faith in Luther’s theology. He or
she who does no deeds is, without question, no Christian (ch. 2.6). This is in line with Jesus’s analogy
to a tree and its fruit in Matthew 7:15-20. As a Lutheran, though, one is assured comfort in the fact
that one is saved by faith and not by works. But how does one know that he or she has faith? Luther
never supported any merely sentimental faith, or the sort of mystic approach that seeks God only
through enlightenment. The freedom from earned merit has to be established on some solid
foundation. Here, the problem simply is that as soon as one asks, “Do I have faith?”, the answer is,
“Look at your actions.”. Should one answer, “But I am saved by faith, not actions!”, the response
would be, “Absolutely, you are. But faith is measured in actions. No actions, no faith!”.
The conclusion we can draw from this is that it actually makes little difference whether
sanctification serves a salvific purpose itself, or merely determines the presence of the real salvific
element: faith. Either way, the absence of sanctification is equaled to perdition. If this line of
reasoning holds, we might have to accept that Luther’s division of salvation and sanctification merely
was a theoretical clarification at best, which had little of the pastoral edge he had hoped for. This is
not to say that Lutheranism has failed all attempts at ensuring the Christian freedom. We shall soon
see, how Luther actually approaches the task from another and more successful angle. I have merely
argued that by this road, Christians cannot hope to find liberty from moralistic slavery. Next, I will
compare a few perspectives, which Luther and Wright have in common.
4.4 Points of Convergence
4.4.1 Present and Future Judgement
Wright and Luther treat the event of the final judgment with some similar considerations. As already
remarked, the covenantal nomism idea about the present and the future justification is imperative to
Wright (ch. 3.2). It serves to communicate that salvation is based on faith in the present as well as on
the future judgment of actions. Wright does all but identify the two judgments with one another, “the
verdict already announced is indeed a true anticipation of the verdict yet to be announced.” (Wright
2009:198). The word used is “anticipation”, and it does not speak of a brand new eschatological
judgment, but rather a reiteration of the judgment already carried out. If we turn to Luther, we notice
an almost similar interpretation of the temporal element of the judgment (ch. 2.4). Though he does
not speak of a twofold judgment, let alone judgment of works, he does speak of one timeless
26
justification. The reason he does so is that he wishes to eliminate the possibility of claiming that there
is no present transformation (Kolb-Arand 2008:43-44). Justification has already taken place, our
sinful nature has died, and it is time have a change of heart towards the selfless sanctification.
Admittedly, Luther and Wright present their views in somewhat diverse phrasings. Nevertheless, it
is my impression that their views correspond rather closely on this point and both underline the actual
importance of faith and good works in the present. They would both, I believe, acknowledge the ‘not-
yet’ aspect (see Bruno 2017) of the eschatological salvation, agreeing that the judgment is,
historically, a future event. Though we are now justified, the resurrection and glorification at the
second coming of Christ are still to be finalized.
4.4.2 Defining Sanctification
Another point of shared thought among Luther and Wright is the definition of sanctification. I have
argued that Wright’s morality of seeking the good leads to the ethic of virtue (ch. 3.5). The ethic of
virtue entails that a sanctified person is a Christian, who, in the spirit, intends to do what is right.
Insofar as one acts in correspondence with one’s conscience, one is sanctified. Luther also saw the
root of an action to be the determinant of its inherent goodness (ch. 2.4). Luther clearly designated
faith as the central characteristic. Faith is the source of love and righteousness, which in turn are
essential values to sanctification. Also, this phrasing serves the purpose of tracing every deed back to
Christ through faith. It follows that Luther and Wright are compatible at this point, discerning the
same core of what it means, practically, to be sanctified. The Christian’s character, faith, intentions;
it is what defines sanctification. Luther and Wright recognize that a person, by mistake, can effect
evil around him or her. Yet, this is not a matter of character or intentions and, therefore, nor of
sanctification. In the following, I will compare Luther’s and Wright’s views on faith, and attempt to
widen the perspective of faith’s origins.
4.4.3 Exploring Faith: A Wider Perspective
Earlier in the paper, I expounded Luther’s and Wright’s views on faith (ch. 2.4; 3.6). In this field also,
by and large, Luther and Wright seem to be in agreement. Firstly, the origin of faith is crucial to the
task of locating the source of salvation. Faith is given by God, the two theologians agree. Furthermore,
faith arises as a mystery. God creates it, and it is beyond explanation. Luther held that faith was
elicited by the promise, which expects the response of faith. Secondly, apart from being from God,
Luther and Wright also agree that faith is to God. Faith has a direction, and it clings on to Christ in
27
humility and dependency. Thirdly, they agree that faith, though unexplainable, can be striven for
through preaching of the word, and, according to Luther, also through the means of grace.
I believe these three characteristics of faith to be true, but, simultaneously, I suspect there might
be important details left to add. I find it quite simplistic to determine the ‘law and gospel’ message
about condemnation and restoration as the crucial subject matter of preaching and sacraments. It is
pressing to ask, I contend, why a person should believe the world order presented in ‘law and gospel’
in the first place.
Speaking of sanctification, it is possible for a Christian to grow in good works. What is ‘good’ can
be understood through scripture and experience, and a mature Christian has learned and is learning
to judge what is right and wrong (Rom 12:2; Heb 5:11-14). This being so, would it not be reasonable
to expect that also the sharing of the faith is a skill that can be improved beyond the limitation of
repeating and explaining the gospel message? Should evangelism be confined to the kerygma, the
axiomatic declaration of the Christian message?
I suspect that Luther and Wright are too caution when it comes to exploring the origin of faith.
The aspect of faith, that it is actually partially dependent on human reason, I find to be overlooked.
For example, The First Letter of Peter states, “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who
demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you;” (1 Pet 3:15). Similarly, on different
occasions Paul has to defend his legitimacy as an apostle and the legitimacy of his errand (Acts 17:1-
9.22-34; 26; 1 Cor 9; 2 Tim 4:16). Paul does not defend his case in arbitrary ways so profound that
we must abstain from studying them. Instead, I believe that learning to substantiate and elaborate
Christianity is relevant to the elicitation of faith. What else does it mean, when Paul urges the
congregation to, “proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable;
convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching.” (2 Tim 4:2). This expands
our view on mission. Mission involves every favorable tool, which might be employed to elicit faith
in the unbeliever. I would also like to mention that throughout the Gospel of John, it can be seen how
Jesus performs miracles for the sake of eliciting faith, starting with the calling of Nathanael, as he
says, “Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things
than these.” (John 1:50).
Therefore, it is my conviction that it really is possible to explore the origins of faith further than
Luther and Wright have done. I find the field of Christian apologetics to constitute a sound response
to this task. Unfortunately, the practice of substantiating faith rationally has not gained a proper
footing in Western theology; at least not the footing which would be appropriate to it. The possibilities
28
of and challenges to Christian apologetics I believe to be many, yet we will not dwell longer on this
issue in the present research.
Hereby, I have compared Luther’s and Wright’s views on faith, and I have outlined a suggestion
as to in what direction a further exploration of faith might point. This has shown that there are further
pastoral tools for eliciting faith than Lutheranism and the New Perspective on Paul have outlined in
the works accounted for. I will now continue to elaborate on the orientation of the Christian.
4.4.4 Forgetting Oneself
In relation to the mutual Christian search for ‘freedom in Christ’ (ch. 4.3), it is relevant to address
the idea of ‘forgetting oneself’. This wording is one that I have chosen, and it is meant to denote the
practice that the Christian can choose to not evaluate his own acts and, therefore, neither faith. In
Kolb-Arand’s treatment on Lutheranism as well as in Wright’s dealings with ‘faith’, this
phenomenon does not take up much space, though I have mentioned it in their expositions (2.4;
3.6). Perhaps this is so because it is rather easily stated. It is, straightforwardly, a practical matter of
choosing not to engage in assessing one’s own merit in God’s eyes. This does not mean that a
Christian should be blind to the consequences of his or her actions. Neither does it mean that a
Christian cannot (in all humility) compare his spiritual maturity to others. Rather, it is a matter of
“forgetting” that sanctification is connected to salvation. This is cognate to saying, “I will not doubt
my own faith, I will look to Christ and rest in Him.”. Though this implicates little theological
reasoning, it is actually a decent way of ensuring Christian self-confidence. Luther and Wright
would agree that a Christian was ultimately never meant to assess his own or others’ salvation.
Faith is never complete, and the Christian can, thus, never feel certain; unless we forget ourselves,
that is. This practice is also evident in Paul’s writing, “But with me it is a very small thing that I
should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of
anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.” (1 Cor 4:3-
4). That is, I believe, the most reasonable way to free the believer from what Luther called
Anfechtung (2.4).
4.4.5 The Work of the Spirit
It should briefly be noted that the theological exponents in this research to a large degree share their
view on the work of the spirit. Luther and Wright agree that, through faith, the spirit brings about the
good works in the Church. Also, they agree that it is the spirit who works through the actual
29
manifestations of God’s Word, and therefore, it is the spirit who elicits faith. This is worth noting,
but because it leads in two rather different directions in Luther’s and Wright’s theologies, we shall
not dwell longer on this issue.
4.5 Sanctification as Part of Salvation
In this final chapter, I wish to explore whether Wright’s standpoint is a reasonable solution to the
issue of determining the origin of sanctification.
Sanctification, as we know, is about the good works, the actions of the believer. Different
approaches arise, when we ask who is responsible for those actions. One could advance the claim that
it is either the human person or God that should be held accountable. This would render one single
entity fully responsible. Either of those answers, as I have shown, are fallacious (ch. 4.2). Another
solution would be to “carve up” the full responsibility into lesser pieces and distribute them
appropriately. This would be contained in a participationalist view, meaning that God and human
each contribute to achieving sanctification. The participationalist standpoint is harder to refute. Yet,
it carries some opaqueness: the believer should do some part himself/herself, but some other
willingness comes naturally, given by God. It seems unclear what palpable experience of
sanctification this approach would expect. Also, it could be argued that as soon as just the tiniest part
of effort is attributed to the human being, it essentially turns into moralistic righteousness by works.
As an alternative, Wright holds that God and Christian are equally and fully responsible both. He
rejects the participationalist synergism, while simultaneously justifying his own form of synergism
(fully God and human), which he claims to be Pauline (Wright 2009:164). Is it possible to justify this
stance?
I would argue, that the question of personal responsibility rests on one’s view on the causality
principle. If everything, including personal choice, happens via the cause-and-effect-correlation, no
one is responsible. If any event is triggered by reasons outside its domain, we are simply the results
of our situations. In this deterministic view, the entire world is a long predestined succession of
consequences that can be traced back to the first moving cause. The first moving cause can be
considered to be God since he is eternal and created the world at a point in time, whereby he set the
wheels in motion. Through this rationale, God is fully responsible for everything that happens
including our vices and virtues. If we reckoned this philosophy as final, we would be forced to
reconsider Luther’s position on good works and ascribe sanctification solely to the will of God.
30
Instead, we must ask, what can be said to empower the will of the person? Naturally, to many, the
responsibility of the person is self-evident. Some hold the experience of the free will, my own choice,
in high esteem. Others refuse to accept that any perception of anger or gratitude should be
meaningless, which would be the case if one endorsed the full deterministic world-view. Finally,
since we as Christians rely on the Biblical teachings, we must accept that scripture speaks of human
responsibility. This is implicitly done in all the cases where Wright underlines our responsibility for
our works (Wright 2009:160-161), or when Jesus mourned Jerusalem, “How often have I desired to
gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
(Matt 23:37b).
For these reasons, I believe we have to consider the presence of human responsibility. Both God
and human are essentially and responsibly involved in sanctification, somehow. According to Wright,
the question of responsibility can only be answered with a self-contradiction: that Christians are
accountable and innocent at the same time. Whatever path we choose, the result is some measure of
synergism, involving both God and human. Within the parameters of this project, I am unable to
deduce whether Wright’s paradox is accurate or not. Ultimately, the conclusion relies heavily on
exegesis, a theological discipline scarcely present in this work.
I contend that Wright’s solution points in the right direction. The incorporation of both God and
human seems philosophically probable and scripturally sound. On salvation, Paul holds that God
wishes every person to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-4), yet since, evidently, not all persons are saved, this
places responsibility on us. Paul also maintains that God sovereignly chooses according to his own
will (Rom 9:6-18). The verse of Romans 8:28 leads us the same way, “We know that all things work
together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”. Hence, God’s
purpose and the human love towards God are intrinsically connected, as this verse illustrates. All in
all, I lean towards supporting Wright.
31
5 Conclusion By now, we have been through the entirety of the paper; initially, by exploring the problem, which
the present research aims to solve, and, finally, in the discussion and findings that are offered in the
previous chapter. As stated, the ambition of this paper is to contribute to the debate on how we might
counteract the unfortunate tendencies of the Church in the West. I have shown why revival just might
be connected to the proper teaching of faith and works, contained in the subjects of sanctification and
salvation. Furthermore, we have gained a simple overview in chapter two and three of the essentially
different approaches, which Martin Luther and his followers as well as N. T. Wright employ to
determine the origin of salvation and sanctification. Chapter four has taken us far and wide. I have
shown how Luther’s ‘mechanical’ good works do not cohere with the experience of struggle against
sin, and that his view on sanctification does not free the anxious Christian from asking, “Am I
saved?”. Also, we have explored areas where Luther and Wright agree more or less, and subsequently,
I have drafted a proposal for an elaboration on the teaching of faith. Lastly, I have provided a
consideration of Wright’s view on human responsibility in sanctification and salvation.
The original problem statement specified that I would aim at determining how, respectively,
salvation and sanctification are acquired. Therefore, I would like to do this with as much clarity and
unambiguity as possible. In this regard, I find it beneficial to start out with the subject of
sanctification. My conclusion is presented in the following:
Firstly, sanctification is rooted in faith. As faith becomes present in the person, simultaneously the
Holy Spirit inhabits that person and awakens the selfless benevolence, which characterizes all
Christians. The Holy Spirit, though, does not force or manipulate his will to the believer. Rather, he
changes the heart, so that the person freely – and in defiance of his sinful nature – may choose to act
accordingly to his conscience. A Christian not always succeed in doing what is right, but he or she
longs to. A Christian finds joy in what is good and despises what is against the will of God; evil doing.
Sanctification will in all cases lead to tangible improvement, yet technically, as argued (ch. 4.4.2), it
is fully attained in the change of heart, not actual works. Exactly how the responsibility for
sanctification is placed on both God and man lies beyond my discernment.
Secondly, salvation is rooted in faith. It is rooted in a faith that is hidden to oneself and to others,
only discernable to God. Furthermore, salvation is also rooted in sanctification. Since sanctification
is the inseparable sign of faith, and since it, as Wright reasonably asserts, seems to be a scriptural
basis of judgment, it cannot practically be parted from salvation.
32
Thirdly, Christian faith – the basis of salvation and sanctification - is trust in what is encompassed in
the law-and-gospel message and everything that message leads to. Faith is elicited as a mystery,
through the different applications of the Word. Probably, faith can be sought more specifically
through the human rationale and intuition, but this is only left here as a suggestion for further research.
Fourth, since I have concluded that sanctification is implicit in salvation, how is the believer to be
freed from merciless self-accusation? This is to be done, quite simply, by refusing to assess oneself.
Faith is in Christ, and it is devoid of any self-consciousness. The Christian is aware that he or she
believes, and in what he or she believes, but not how much. In respect to salvation, the Christian
should never assess faith and sanctification, only seek it.
Hereby, I believe to have answered the questions posed as fully as could be expected within the
parameters of this project. The conclusions found edify the understanding of my Lutheran context,
particularly regarding the faith and works teaching. Potentially, I think this project could contribute
to overcoming the peril of the Church in the West. In the future, further theological research could be
undertaken to explore the origin of faith, or the meaning of human and divine reciprocity in
sanctification.
33
Bibliography Notes
All English Biblical references are made to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
All Greek Biblical references are made to Nestle-Aland, 28th revised edition.
Internal cross referencing is noted as such: (ch. [number of chapter])
Project Literature Allingham, Sarah. 2006. Hvad er en kulturkristen? (Translated: What is a cultural Christian?).
Published online by Kristeligt Dagblad. Seen 08.01.2018.
https://www.religion.dk/viden/hvad-er-en-kulturkristen
Anon. 2003. Review Article : The New Perspective on Paul in The Expository Times 144:11.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001452460311401110?journalCode=exta
Brenner, Philip S. 2016. Cross-National Trends in Religious Service Attendance in Public Opinion
Quarterly. 80:2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seen 08.01.2018.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4888582/pdf/nfw016.pdf
Bruno, Chris. 2017. The Already and the Not Yet. Crossway.org. Seen 15.01.2018.
https://www.crossway.org/articles/the-already-and-the-not-yet/
Højlund, Asger Chr. 2017. Urimeligt Godt Nyt. Fredericia, Denmark: Kolon
Kirkeministeriet (Translated: The Danish Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs). 2017. Folkekirkens
medlemstal (Translated: Membership Numbers of the National Lutheran Church). Seen
08.11.2017.
http://www.km.dk/folkekirken/kirkestatistik/folkekirkens-medlemstal/
Kolb, Robert. Arand, Charles P. (Referenced: Kolb-Arand). 2008. The Genuis of Luther’s Theology:
A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic.
Larsen, Kurt E. 2005. Vækkelser og vækkelsesforkyndelse i ”de gode gamle dage” (1860-1914) in
Budskabet. (Translated: Revivals and revival preaching in ”the good old days” (1860-1914)
in The Message). 141:5. Seen 08.11.2017.
http://dlm.dk/sites/default/files/files/budskabet_05-5.pdf
34
Larsen, Kurt E. 2011. Vækkelser er ikke et overstået fænomen (Translated: Revivals are not a past
phenomenon). Published online by Kristeligt Dagblad. Seen 08.01.2018
https://www.kristendom.dk/kommentaren/v%C3%A6kkelser-er-ikke-et-overst%C3%A5et-
f%C3%A6nomen
McGrath, Alister E. 1986. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification from 1500
to the present day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pew Research Center. 2015. The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-
2050. Seen 08.11.2017.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/03/PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsFullReport.pdf
Wright, N. T. 2009. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge.
Luther, Martin. 1966. Luthers Works. Vol 41. Ed. Eric W. Gritsch. Philadelphia: Fortress Press

seeking the origin of salvation and sanctification

Documents