Luther’s Doctrine of Justification in the Light of Thomas Aquinas’ Doctrine of Justification: The Same Light or Different? by Suneal Pal A thesis submitted to Wycliffe College at the Department of the Toronto School of Theology, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Theology Option 1, awarded by Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto. © Copyright by Suneal Pal 2013 Luther’s Doctrine of Justification in the Light of Thomas Aquinas’ Doctrine of Justification: The Same Light or Different? Suneal Pal Master of Theology Option 1 Wycliffe College Department of Theology at University of Toronto 2013 Abstract This thesis probes the question as to whether Martin Luther significantly differs from Thomas Aquinas, with respect to the doctrine of justification. The significance of a comparison between these two theologians concerning justification lies in the perception that they are both, in their respective traditions, representative of the Protestant and Catholic positions upon this subject. The Joint Declaration, signed in 1999 between Lutherans and Roman Catholics, indicates an almost unified modern confession on the doctrine of justification. The purpose of this thesis is to determine if the Protestant concern for justification is adequately addressed in such a “joint” confession. This is accomplished by: examining the background and relevant issues at stake; exploring Aquinas’ justification-related theology; comparing Luther’s doctrine of justification in relationship to both Aquinas’ and to that of the New Finnish Interpretation of Luther; making final conclusions. Pal concludes that Luther’s doctrine of justification differs significantly from Aquinas’. ii Table of Contents Chapter 1: Thesis and Background 1.1 Thesis: 1 1.2 Background 12 Chapter 2: Aquinas 2.1 Justification 26 2.2 Faith and Charity 32 2.3 Background 34 2.4 Aquinas’ Handling of Providence, Theodicy and Predestination, Particularly as Found in His Work, The Literal Exposition On Job 36 2.5 Two Essays by Yearley and Moltmann 43 2.6 Aquinas’ Ontology 47 Chapter 3: Luther 3.1 Luther’s Understanding of Passive Righteousness, Imputation and the Simul Iustus et Peccator 50 3.2 Two Kingdoms 64 3.3 Anfechtung Defined 68 3.4 Background of Luther and His Times in Relation to Anfechtung 70 3.5 Theodicy, Predestination, Providence 75 3.6 Faith, Anfechtung and the Two Kingdoms 81 3.7 Assurance of Salvation, the Law and Anfechtung 85 Chapter 4: Conclusion and Finishing Thoughts 4.1 Justification, Soteriological Gradualism and Hope 91 4.2 Luther’s “New Doing” and Ontology 95 iii List of Appendices Appendix: Certainty A 99 Appendix: Certainty B 99 Appendix: Certainty C 100 Appendix: Advent A 100 Appendix: Advent B 101 Bibliography 102 iv Chapter 1 Thesis and Background 1.1 Thesis This paper will investigate Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone in the light of Aquinas’ doctrine of justification by “faith formed by love.” Luther’s doctrine of simul iustus et peccator will be central to the discussion since it is best understood as an eschatological reality noted within Luther’s doctrine of justification. Eschatology here will be confined in its definition as it bears to justification by faith (“alone” for Luther and “informed by love” for Aquinas), for this is what remains pertinent to our discussion. Eschatology is that which speaks of last things. Our concern is how this relates to justification. Torrance sums up the important elements of this more specified definition of eschatology for Luther, when he says, The term imputatio... indicated that justification is forensic in the sense that it is grounded on the judgement of Christ on the Cross, but indicated also that what happened there for us is yet to be fully disclosed at the Advent of Christ. Imputatio is the concept which holds together those two moments, the forensic and the eschatological, in one. That the believer is imputed righteous means that he possesses a righteousness which is real, though not yet fully realised. It is that relation between having and not having which lies at the heart of Luther’s eschatology.... It is the eschatological dialectic of justus et peccator.1 I would like to add that when Torrance speaks of the “the forensic,” it is also eschatological (realized eschatology), and when he speaks of “the eschatological,” (future eschatology as related to the before mentioned realized eschatology) it is the fulfillment of the forensic, of 1 T.F. Torrance, “The Eschatology of the Reformation,” Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers, no. 2 (1953, reprint, 1957): 41-42. 1 2 what God first brought in the “judgement of Christ on the cross.” The “Advents” of Christ, both in the Incarnation/Crucifixion and in the Parousia yet to come, are the eschatological poles which imputation holds together as one. The simul iustus et peccator (totus/totus) thus speaks of the imputation of righteousness, in terms of what it has already accomplished, in terms of what it is currently accomplishing in part,2 and in terms of what it yet will fully accomplish. According to such Scriptures as Acts 2:17 and Heb 1:2; 9:26, the end has come in the crucifixion, resurrection and glorification of Jesus Christ. But whereas the end has come in terms of imputed righteousness, because our sin has been “judged on the cross,” yet for the world, it awaits the purgation of fire (II Pet 3:10), while the governments of power within it, also await their judgement. This includes all church governments. Torrance says concerning these judgements which Luther’s eschatology embraces, that Neither Church nor the State can assume absolute power. Both are under the judgement, and that judgement relativises and restricts the authority of each. Rebellion against that limitation is apparent in the wielding of spiritual and worldly authority into one, the potestas tyrannica which Luther discerned in the action of the Papacy on the one hand and the action of the Schwarmer on the other.3 As will be discussed below, Aquinas’ continuity-related aspects in his soteriology, between nature and grace, the world and the church, and reason and revelation, all reveal that practically no “judgement” awaits the present order. This is particularly true with regards to his doctrine of the Church, wherein he says that “faith adheres to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth proposed to us in Scriptures, according to the 2 See Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535, vol. 26 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and associate editor Walter A. Hansen (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963-64), 351, where he says, “mean while our comfort is that we have the first fruits of the Spirit and have begun to be leavened, but that we shall be completely leavened when this sinful body is destroyed and we arise new with Christ.” Although Luther speaks of “first fruits,” which is Luther’s expression of sanctification, he always confesses that sin remains in our sinful bodies until the resurrection of the body. 3 Torrance, “The Eschatology of the Reformation,” 45. 3 teaching of the Church who has the right understanding of them.”4 Aquinas goes so far as to call the teaching of the Church, as the proper interpreter of Scripture, “an infallible and Divine rule.”5 Hence, for Aquinas, this is one example of how the doctrine of justification within his context does not judge the present order of the Catholic Church in any substantive manner. Furthermore, Aquinas, in combating Joachim’s radical eschatology, says that “now no state of the present life can be more perfect than the state of the New Law: since nothing can approach nearer to the last end than that which is the immediate cause of our being brought to the last end.”6 This statement seems to me to be correct, except that for Aquinas, the New Law, in that it often pertains to the Catholic sacramental system, is associated with a chiliasm that is fulfilled in the present state of the Church. This essentially makes the church the kingdom of God on earth.7 Furthermore, if Aquinas’ understanding of justification does not include imputation as its primary component, then this gives rise to the question, whether the interpretation of the New Law he promulgates, is as “perfect” as Aquinas assumes. Luther’s doctrine of justification says that we have not merely approached justification as the beginning of both the goal of sanctification and of eternal life, but that rather in the present time we have perfect righteousness by imputation, and as such we already have the end in Jesus Christ. Luther’s theology of the cross works in conjunction with the judgements of the cross. Apocalyptic elements are strong in Luther’s theology, because his soteriology embraces such judgements upon the world order. In imputation God views us “in Christ” (in His kingdom) as though the end had fully come, and hence as being “perfect.” But this kingdom of grace (Christ) is brought 4 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae: Complete English Edition in Five Volumes: II-II, q. 5 a.3, transl. by Fathers of the Dominican Province, revised ed. (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981). 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., I-II, q. 106, a. 4. 7 See below in chapter two on Aquinas. 4 to us via the judgement of the cross of Christ. Therefore, nature, when described as elevated and healed, offers an inadequate description of the disruptive and purely divine elements of grace. This disruption is wholly connected to the tensions inherent in the biblical eschatology of “the already/not yet.” On the other hand, Aquinas’ soteriology reveals that a metaphysic of final causes,8 rather than eschatological realism (fulfillment in history), is the driving force of the telos (goal) of his doctrinal system. For example, and as will be further discussed below, Otto Pesch makes the claim that Aquinas’ soteriology is focused on God as the Creator. In this emphasis, the continuity between pre and post-conversion, reason and revelation, nature and super-nature (grace and its effects and role), is a highlighted feature of Aquinas’ soteriology. Therefore, in order to highlight these eschatological differences, as noted above, this paper will address how both Luther and Aquinas deal with theodicy, with its inclusion of Providence and predestination, as interpretive frameworks for their respective doctrines of justification. For Luther, his heightened eschatological perspective, whether pertaining to the world around him at his time or whether impinging upon his own inner world (psychological/religious/spiritual), led him to view justification as a re-creative event occurring in the Word preached and heard by faith alone. Therefore, for Luther, the telos or goal of human life is thus not sought in relation to the first creation but rather to the second creation in Christ, occurring ex nihilo from our spiritual death, poverty and our state as enemies and sinners before God. For example, Luther says, “For He is the Almighty Creator, who makes everything out of nothing.”9 Luther connects or rather disconnects this recreation in Christ 8 For further discussion of this, see the section below in chapter two, “Two Essays by Yearley and Moltmann.” 9 “Lectures on Galatians, 1535,” LW 26: 314. Later referred to as, “Lectures on Galatians.” 5 from moral ethics, by saying, “In theology there is a new ‘doing,’ one that is different from moral ‘doing.’”10 This theme will be further developed towards the latter part of the paper. Thomas Aquinas on the other hand, interprets justification in keeping with his view of second causes, so that as providence is seen as indirect, in that God as the Prime Mover (initial) has set into motion the universe, so also justification has a tendency to be teleological, and as such oriented towards a process. Hence Aquinas holds to faith formed by love as prerequisite for justification.11 As such nature is elevated and healed12 rather than seen as primarily being led into a disruption which leads to death in order to be re-created. Although Thomas from a theological perspective also ascribes the new creation in Christ to the believer with its death/resurrection themes,13 this is held within the framework of his Creator/creation theological emphasis. Therefore, on both sides of the equation, whether that of life before conversion or whether of life after conversion, Thomas stresses continuity. This continuity is further expressed in the unification between reason and revelation, as in a continuum rather than in opposition to each other. It results in a theology of continuity between the Church and the world, in which a greater stability-factor exists than in Luther’s theology. It is such a disposition towards the Church which disposes Aquinas’ theology towards one that has no judgement towards the present order. For Aquinas, the “present order” of which I have above 10 Ibid., 264. 11 Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Albany, N.Y: Magi Books Inc., 1966), 156: Aquinas says “For faith is a knowledge of the word of God- ‘That Christ may dwell in your hearts’ (Eph 3:17) - which word is not perfectly possessed or perfectly known unless the love which it hopes for is possessed.” Or again, “But when one does not have ‘formed faith,’ Christ has died in him,” 133. 12 See Lee H Yearley, “St. Thomas Aquinas on Providence and Predestination,” Anglican Theological Review, 49 no 4 (O 1967): 414. Although divine intervention is central to Aquinas’ doctrine of predestination, this is seen as overlaying Providence, so that “God does not directly control all particular happenings in the world, having ordained most of them to occur contingently.” Yearley goes on to say, “The felix culpa idea in Thomas is always in tension with his sense of the goodness of the created pre-Fall world,” 416n16. 13 Aquinas, Commentary on Galatians, 62. 6 made reference, largely consists in the Church, since as Torrance above says, under the papacy both spiritual and worldly authority are wielded into one. By contrast, in looking at Luther, discontinuity is stressed in his Law/Gospel dialectic. This dialectic is ever maintained in Luther’s theology, both pre- and post-conversion,14 and as such his eschatology is heightened to accommodate this. Providence, predestination and theodicy fit then into Luther’s eschatological and even apocalyptic vision, which both he and the Reformers of his day (including Protestants at large) held in common with respect to their historical context. For example, Luther saw himself as a prophetic figure of deliverance from the “Antichrist” of the papacy.15 Cunningham and Grell say, “By far the most significant... prophecies were those of the fifteenth-century Franciscan monk, Johann Hilton, who had predicted the rise of a great reformer who in 1516 would initiate a reformation of the Church. No clearer proof could be given for Luther’s prophetic consequence, and even the Reformer himself accepted this prophecy.”16 Hence Luther’s estrangement from God, in the personal quest in which he struggled to find peace with God, coincides with the turbulent and catastrophic times in which he lived. The formula Luther discovered in Scripture concerning Pauline justification, and which became his own theological breakthrough, also aligned with the events of his times as Luther and the other Reformers understood them,17 and thus affliction 14 By “conversion,” I here mean it in terms of the reception of justifying grace. 15 Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell, The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine and Death in Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 13, 20; “Luther’s appearance on the scene as a religious reformer and recoverer of the Gospel, came to be seen in a prophetic and eschatological light…. The value of being able to claim that they (Reformers) were the godly troops of Christ fighting the ungodly soldiers of the papacy- Antichrist in Rome- in the last eschatological battle... can, as we shall see, hardly be overestimated.” 16 Ibid., 21. 17 Ibid., 319: “Thus to contemporaries the increase and growing intensity of warfare, new epidemics and diseases, not to mention the higher incidence of famine, and the perceived increase in celestial signs, such as